Hakluyt's Peripatetic Discourse

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157 brill.com/erc

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse

Robert Imes University of Saskatchewan [email protected]

Abstract

In this article, I examine intellectual correspondences between two manuscripts that Richard Hakluyt (1552–1616) presented to Queen Elizabeth i in tandem in 1584: his well-known “Discourse of Western Planting” and his underappreciated “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics. I argue that Aristotle’s vision of the ideal political state as a materially and morally self-sustaining system, as represented in the “Analysis,” serves as the philosophical foundation of Hakluyt’s recommendations in the “Discourse” that Eng- land pursue an aggressive policy of expansionist, colonial growth. Hakluyt describes colonialism as a panacea for England’s socioeconomic issues and as the means by which England might become self-sustaining in the manner of Aristotle’s ideal state.

Keywords

Hakluyt – Aristotle – discourse – colonialism – philosophy – Renaissance – England

On 5 October 1584, clergyman Richard Hakluyt presented Queen Elizabeth with two ostensibly disparate documents: his “Discourse of Western Planting” and “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics.1 While the “Discourse” is a comprehensive

* This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the J.B. Harley Research Trust and Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation; and The Liter- ary Encyclopedia. 1 Hakluyt, “Analysis, seu Resolutio Perpetua in Octo Libros Politicorum Aristolelis.” The Brit- ish Library owns the two existing manuscripts of the “Analysis,” which has never been published in its entirety. Although I am informed that the British Library currently has no plans to publish the “Analysis,” E.G.R. Taylor reprints most of the dedicatory epistle in Taylor 203. A complete facsimile copy of the dedicatory epistle serves as the frontispiece of Quinn’s Hakluyt Handbook. Only two sustained criticisms of the “Analysis” have been made, one by

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 141 summary of the envisioned religious, economic, and socio-political benefits of establishing English colonies in North America, the “Analysis” is a para- phrased, complete Latin summary of the eight books of Aristotle’s text. While Hakluyt is chiefly known for promoting English colonialism by collecting and publishing compendia of historical and contemporary travelogues, the “Dis- course,” like his compendia, is intrinsically intertextual; Hakluyt bolsters the persuasiveness of his arguments by citing dozens of English and European au- thorities. Although the “Discourse” has achieved widespread critical attention, the “Analysis” has not. Nonetheless, Hakluyt’s presentation of the “Discourse” and the “Analysis” in tandem is a matter of exegetical, intertextual significance. As David Armitage, the sole critic to engage this connection, albeit in passing, writes, Hakluyt’s “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics “supplied the political and moral context within which he expected Elizabeth and her counsellors … to judge his proposals for English colonization.”2 To expand on Armitage’s assess- ment by clarifying specific points of intellectual correspondence between the “Analysis” and the “Discourse,” in this paper I present sustained readings of both texts and argue that Hakluyt’s colonialist recommendations are fundamentally informed by the apex of Aristotle’s political teleology, his ideal of a self-sufficient state. In the “Discourse,” colonialism thus figures, primarily, as a means to make England materially and spiritually self-sustaining in the manner of Aristotle’s model polis, as represented in the “Analysis” of the Politics.3 A survey of Hakluyt’s involvement in England’s nascent colonial aspirations is necessary to establish the historical context in which he prepared his two documents. On 31 August 1583, three ships commanded by Sir Humphrey Gil- bert began their return voyage to England after formally taking possession of Newfoundland in Queen Elizabeth’s name. The contingent was the remnants of a larger, ill-fated fleet that had left England in early June on a voyage of con- quest and encountered severe weather and shipwreck on the way.4 Although

Lawrence V. Ryan and another by David Armitage, in his book The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Although he does not examine the connections between the “Analysis” and the “Discourse,” Ryan notes that while the “Analysis” is occasionally mentioned in conjunction with the “Discourse,” biographers and scholars tend to either ignore the “Analysis,” deem it inconsequential, or are mistaken about its nature (73). For example, Mancall mentions the “Analysis” several times, but he merely does so to remind readers repeatedly that the work is distinguished in its never being published (278, 301, 306). For a general synopsis of the “Dis- course,” framed in a biographical context, see Mancall, esp. 128–55. 2 Armitage, “Literature and Empire” 107. 3 Polis roughly translates to political community, body of citizens, or state. 4 For a longer discussion of Gilbert’s 1583 expedition, see Gosling 183–271.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

142 Imes

Gilbert’s annexation of Newfoundland, the first English possession in the New World, was a token of success for a voyage characterized by failure, the venture continued to have bad luck when, on 9 September, the returning ships encountered foul weather and rough seas in the North Atlantic. Gilbert’s reckless deci- sion to remain aboard his diminutive flagship during the storm proved to be his undoing as, around midnight, fierce waves swallowed the ship, and he was lost. Gilbert’s death left several proposed expeditions in limbo, but English co- lonialists were without a leader for only a short time. On 25 March 1584, the queen granted Sir Walter Raleigh letters patent that gave him the right to “discover, search, finde out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories, not actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by Christian People,” and to establish colonies in England’s name.5 In addition to the close relationship he enjoyed with Elizabeth, Raleigh was favoured for his diplomatic skills and ability to bind others to his cause. He had also been involved in Gilbert’s 1578 and 1583 voyages; Robert Lacey re- marks that while Queen Elizabeth’s principle contribution to the 1583 expedition was a request that Gilbert not accompany the fleet, Raleigh raised funds, provided a ship, and convinced Elizabeth to allow Gilbert to depart.6 In April 1584, Raleigh sent two ships on a reconnaissance voyage to what would soon become known as Virginia.7 Before his explorers returned, Raleigh sought to attract investors to his enterprise; he especially desired a grant of public funding from the queen. Raleigh needed a mouthpiece. John Dee, who had played a lead advisory role in the earlier voyages of Martin Frobisher, Gilbert, and the Muscovy Company in search of a Northwest Passage, and who had written ex- tensively on English colonialism, was absent, as the period from 1583 to 1589 was the time of Dee’s “enigmatic escapades at the Bohemian court.”8 Likewise, Christopher Carleill, Sir George Peckham, and Edward Hayes, all of whom had written notable discourses on England’s colonial affairs, were not chosen to be Raleigh’s chief propagandist. Instead, that role fell to Hakluyt. Hakluyt’s familiarity with the logistics of foreign trade and geographi- cal science made him an ideal advisor for expansionist projects. From 1577 to 1583 Hakluyt was an academic at Oxford University, where he lectured on geography and political philosophy. In conjunction with his responsibilities

5 Thorpe 53–7. Raleigh’s letters patent are almost identical to those granted to Gilbert in 1578, which are reproduced by Gosling 165–71. 6 Lacey 55–6. 7 The voyage was led by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe. See Lacey 62–3. 8 Sherman 8.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 143 as an instructor, Hakluyt consulted with renowned continental geographers Abraham Ortelius and Gerard Mercator, published the narratives of Jacques Cartier’s discovery of the St. Lawrence River, and acted in an advisory role to both the Clothworkers’ Company and to Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsing- ham.9 In May 1582, he released a slim volume, Divers Voyages Touching the Dis- coverie of America, to publicize England’s colonial opportunities and promote Gilbert’s fateful voyage.10 Divers Voyages includes practical advice to potential colonizers, documents intended to support England’s territorial claims and to describe the coast of North America, and a list of commodities expected to be found. Hakluyt planned, at one point, to accompany Gilbert’s 1583 voyage as an educated observer, but in the end Stephen Parmenius, a friend of Hakluyt’s from Oxford, went instead. The reasons for this substitution are un- known, but, as Parmenius perished along with Gilbert, Hakluyt was fortunate to be excluded. However, as G.B. Parks notes, Parmenius assumed that Hakluyt would be sailing with a later expedition, likely led by Carleill.11 This expedition never took place, and Hakluyt never saw America. Shortly before news was received of Gilbert’s death at sea, Hakluyt, an ordained priest, was appointed chaplain and secretary to England’s ambassador to France, Sir Edward Staf- ford, and moved to Paris. While in France, Hakluyt familiarized himself with French, Portuguese, and Spanish travels to the New World by studying sun- dry documents and consulting with foreign experts. Because a fair amount of the information that Hakluyt gathered was politically sensitive, particularly in light of the growing animosity between Spain and England, and because Hakluyt brought this information to the attention of English officials, his duties as the ambassador’s chaplain and secretary can rightfully be thought of as supplemented with a measure of espionage.12 In short, Raleigh had in Hakluyt a learned, experienced, and committed advisor and spokesman. After less than a year in Paris, Hakluyt was recalled from the English embassy, and in July 1584 he began to prepare a document to present to the queen at Raleigh’s behest. With that text, his “Particuler Discourse Concerninge the Great Necessitie and Manifolde Commodyties that are like to Growe to this Realme of Englande by the Westerne Discoveries Lately Attempted,” known today as his “Discourse of Western Planting,” Hakluyt hoped to persuade the queen to grant Raleigh’s enterprise public financial support. When Hakluyt was received in audi- ence by Queen Elizabeth later that year, shortly after the return of Raleigh ’s

9 See Parks 62–7. 10 On Divers Voyages, see Quinn, Richard Hakluyt, Editor. 11 Parks 83. 12 For a discussion of Hakluyt’s time in France, see Parks 99–122.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

144 Imes

reconnaissance expedition to Virginia, he presented her with both the “Dis- course” and an “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics.13 As mentioned, one of Hakluyt’s responsibilities as an instructor at Oxford was to teach political philosophy, which, at the time, entailed the study of Ar- istotle. Aristotelian studies experienced a revival in the late-Tudor period, as classical authors were taught as part of the statutory curriculum for under- graduates.14 As Charles B. Schmitt notes in his study of Renaissance England’s university culture, the early-to-mid-sixteenth century witnessed a break from earlier scholarship’s emphasis on natural philosophy, Scotist metaphysics, and medieval logic, as the “twin thrusts of humanism and the Reformation made themselves felt and within a relatively few years transformed the edu- cational system.”15 During the late-sixteenth century, as England received an influx of Continental scholarship and re-established presses at both Oxford and Cambridge, university studies in logic, philosophy, rhetoric, and science were oriented towards the study of classical Greek texts, particularly those of Aristotle.16 To prepare his “Analysis,” Hakluyt consulted ancient and contemporary interpretations and translations of the Politics, writing in his 1583 dedicatory epistle: “Consultissimum mihi tum videbatur Interpretes graecos, Latinos, vet- eres, Neotericos, politos, barbarous, omnes pervolvere” [I consulted and read all Greek, Latin, ancient, modern, polished, and crude translations].17 He com- posed the “Analysis” in conjunction with, and concurrently to, lectures on the Politics that he began to give in 1581 while at Oxford.18 Because the first English translation of the Politics was not published until 1598, Hakluyt’s Latin summary would have been a useful resource for students and fellow scholars, and in 1588 he prepared a second version of his “Analysis” expressly for scholarly use (ms Sloane 1982).19 ms Sloane 1982 is annotated to a greater degree than the presentation copy, ms Royal 12. G. xiii, with marginalia added to signpost the constituent sections of Aristotle’s argument. Indeed, the inclusion of these scholarly, indexical markers is one of the only substantive differences between

13 ms Royal 12. G. xiii. 14 See McConica passim. 15 Schmitt 17–19. 16 Schmitt esp. 7–9, 21–3. 17 ms Royal 12. G. xiii, fol. 2r. Please note that because ms Royal 12. G. xiii is the manuscript that Hakluyt presented to the queen with the “Discourse,” I draw my quotations from ms Royal 12. G. xiii rather than from ms Sloane 1982, his later academic version. As mentioned elsewhere, the texts of both manuscripts are mostly identical. 18 Dedicatory epistle, ms Royal 12. G. xiii, fol. 2r. 19 See Cranz.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 145 the two manuscripts. As Lawrence V. Ryan observes, in his study of the rhetoric of the “Analysis” in the context of contemporary university curricula and Re- naissance Aristotelianism,

Exploration of Hakluyt’s “Analysis” will not reveal any intellectual adven- turesomeness on his part. It can help one, however, to discover some- thing of the habits of thought of the accepted methods of lecturing and of handling questiones in the School disputations of Elizabethan Oxford. In both the Royal and Sloane versions, the epitome follows the text of the Politics point by point; the manuscripts are much alike, displaying but few verbal differences, while occasionally one lacks a marginal or intra- textual note found in its companion. Since the work is in effect a précis, rather than an extended commentary, these notes are not numerous, nor does Hakluyt, though he may have done so in his lectures, beyond one exception criticize a statement of Aristotle.20

Hakluyt paraphrases Aristotle while consistently reducing the Politics into the established methodological framework of scholastic rhetoric. Individual topics are usually treated as syllogisms organized as paired objectiones (objec- tions) and responsiones (solutions), and chapters are regularly structured by the following formal categories: Propositio (proposition), Ratio (rationale), Ob- jectio (objection), Refutatio (refutation), and Conclusio (conclusion).21 When he took his leave from university life in 1583 to work for Sir Edward Stafford in Paris, Hakluyt dedicated the “Analysis” to Queen Elizabeth as a token of his gratitude for the appointment and to help justify his place in Stafford’s retinue by affording some evidence of his background in political theory.22 His presentation of the “Analysis” to the queen the following year thus corresponds with the gestures of self-promotion typical of his later corpus, and he was, indeed, granted in recompense the next vacant prebend in Bristol Cathedral.23 The connection between the “Discourse” and the “Analysis” is, however, more nuanced than a simple desire to secure an ecclesiastical benefice. The positions that Hakluyt advances in favour of colonizing North America in his “Discourse” are directly supported by the political theory of Aristotle’s Politics.24 Hakluyt’s “Analysis” of the Politics, then, informs and legitimizes his

20 Ryan 77–8. 21 Ryan 79–81. 22 Ryan 75. 23 Quinn, The Hakluyt Handbook 286. 24 David Harris Sacks compellingly discusses Hakluyt’s broader Aristotelianism, though with only passing reference to the “Analysis.”

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

146 Imes conception of North America as a space of English desire and action in the “Discourse.” The arguments that Hakluyt presented to the queen thereby com- bine foreign policy recommendations and classical political theory to frame a coherent, persuasive attitude towards action in the New World. Specifically, Hakluyt advances Aristotle’s ideal of a self-sufficient polis, the best possible form of a state, by describing colonization as a panacea to England’s contemporary economic and religious problems. In the “Discourse,” then, colonialism is represented as the means by which England can achieve the economic and moral stability of Aristotle’s ideal state. To discuss the “Analysis” further, a brief summary of Aristotle’s main points in The Politics is necessary. Regarded as a formal and doctrinal unity, the Poli- tics describes the conditions necessarily possessed by the ideal state.25 The bulk of the text consists of a survey of various exemplary theoretical and ex- istent states, all of which Aristotle deems to be fundamentally flawed, and a description of different types of political constitutions and their respective merits. As Aristotle posits the disadvantages of the states that he considers to be antithetical, in different ways, to the ideal state, he establishes a basis upon which to ground his conception of constitutional perfection. For Aristotle, the ideal state is not a specifically historical, Greek phenomenon, but the natural, teleological end of political life and “could in principle exist in any place and at any time” if the right conditions were met.26 In Aristotle’s schema families unite to form towns, and towns unite to form states, to facilitate the provision of basic, everyday material needs.27 These basic needs must be satisfied before citizens can live good lives, both individually and as a society, and, as Aristotle says, “mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good.”28 The

25 The pagination of the modern edition of Aristotle’s work, published between 1831 and 1870 by the Berlin Academy, has become the standard means by which Aristotle is cited. A reference to Politics i.2.1253a1, for example, would correspond to chapter 2 of Book 1. The passage in question would be in line 1 of the first column (column a) of page 1253 of the Berlin edition. 26 Simpson xx. 27 “[A] state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life” (Aristotle iii.1.1275b20–1). For more on the family see Aristotle i.2. 28 Aristotle i.1.1252a2–3. In a manner that highlights Hakluyt’s division of Aristotle’s argument into logically-organized, teachable sections, Hakluyt summarizes Aristotle as follows: Propositio primae partis. Finis civitatum, et omnis societatus civilis, est bonum, et quidem praestantissimum. Ratio. Quia omnis communionis finis est bonum, et communionis praestantissae praestantissimum bonum. Approbatio. Quia omnis actionis humanae finis est bonum: omnis autem communio est actio humana: Ergo omnis communionis finis est bonum: & sic praestantissimae, praestantissimum. [The first

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 147 merit of a state is predicated on its ability to provide its citizens, who constitute the political community, with the means to live good lives. Aristotle writes,

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.29

The ideal state is thus a “complete community” that is the natural end of the desire to live well. That is, the ideal state is “self-sufficing” because it is the real- ization and facilitator of the good lives of its citizens. In this way, Aristotle links the fate of states and the fate of citizens. A state that actively promotes virtue and justice by facilitating the satisfaction of basic needs will have citizens committed to moral and spiritual goodness. Good citizens, in turn, perpetu- ate and maintain the virtue and justice of the state by making wise political decisions.30 The ideal state is thus self-sustaining because the material needs

part of the proposition: the goal of the state, and of all civil society, is goodness, and in fact the highest good. Reason: because every goal of the community is good, and the good of the community is the highest good. Proof. The goal of all human action is goodness, and all human action is communal. Therefore, every goal of the community is good, and thus the good of the community is the highest good.] (ms Royal 12. G. xiii, 4r) Also see Aristotle, esp. i.2.1252b12–19, 27–30. With regard to the individual, Aristotle says that “he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state” (i.2.1253ª28–9). That is, individuals cannot be self-sufficing in isolation. In paraphrasing Aristotle, Hakluyt explicitly invokes the principle of Au- tarkeia, or self-sufficiency, which generally holds that the teleological, which is to say natural, end of a state entails the provision of every condition conducive to the lasting happiness of its citizens (ms Royal 12. G. xiii 4v). 29 Aristotle i.2.1252b27–1253ª1. Also see Aristotle, vii.2, 3. For Hakluyt’s summary of this passage, see ms Royal 12. G. xiii, 4r. 30 Aristotle writes that “One citizen differs from another, but the salvation of the community is the common business of them all. This community is the constitution; the virtue of the citizen must therefore be relative to the constitution of which he is a member” (iii.3.1276b28–31). Hakluyt outlines this position in ms Royal 12. G. xiii, 15v–16v.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

148 Imes of its citizens are satisfied and because they have the means to live good, virtuous lives and thereby uphold the state in perpetuity. As Judith A. Swanson and C. David Corbin note, the ideal state is based on the potential of its citizens to achieve self-sufficiency “not simply qua citizens but qua human beings.”31 This capacity for material and moral self-sustenance is the fundamental qual- ity of the ideal state that emerges from Aristotle’s discussion of the best forms of government. Further, Aristotle describes two states as being materially and morally improved by colonialism, writing that the Carthaginians enrich “one portion of the people after another by sending them to their colonies. This is their panacea and the means by which they give stability to the state.”32 Likewise, he notes that in Sparta the illegitimate sons of citizens “attempted a revolution, and, being detected, were sent away to colonize Tarentum” [i.e., the province of Taranto].33 Aristotle’s ideal state might therefore help to ensure its material and moral self-sufficiency by means of colonialist policies. Hakluyt presented his “Analysis” of the Politics and the “Discourse” together to contemporize the wisdom of classical political philosophy and ground his topical, pro-colonial rhetoric on the increasingly canonical teachings of Aris- totle. Armitage adds that Hakluyt wanted to “frame English overseas activity within the context of classical civil philosophy.”34 Hakluyt’s judicious applica- tion of classical wisdom in this instance is thus part of his ongoing work to naturalize English expansion. In the “Discourse,” Hakluyt argues that threats to the social and political stability of England can be ameliorated by a policy of colonial development that would enrich its citizens and make the country more self-sufficient economically, religiously, and, ultimately, politically. That

31 Swanson and Corbin, 49. 32 ii.11.1273b18–20. In his “Analysis,” Hakluyt writes: “Quod Carthaginenses provident ut viri boni ditescant: nec plebs seditionem moueat, cum semper mittunt aliquos ex populo ad regendas minores civitates” [The Carthaginians ensure that good men grow wealthy, and avoid the spread of sedition in the common people, by sending some of their populace to control lesser regions.] (ms Royal 12. G. xiii, 14v). 33 v.6.1306b29–31. Hakluyt writes: In Aristocratiis Seditiones et mutationes fiunt. … Cum pauci honores participant. Est enim quodammodo oligarchia. … Cum fuerit inter eos qui magnos spiritus gerunt, ut Lacedaemone Partheniae, quos cum deprehendissent reliqui Reipub insidiari eos Tarentum miserunt in coloniam. [Revolutions occur in aristocracies when few share in the honours of the state. It is this way in oligarchies, too, when there are many who aspire to be nobles, like the Partheniae at Lacedaemon, who plotted against the state, and, when they were detected, were sent to the Tarentum colony.] (ms Royal 12. G. xiii, 31r) 34 Armitage, Ideological Origins 72.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 149 is, by establishing colonies abroad, England could more readily satisfy the material needs of citizens, who would then be better able to live good, Protestant lives in support of the monarchy. In this manner, Hakluyt’s schema derives its philosophical, logical underpinnings from the template for political self- sufficiency developed by Aristotle. That is, the “Discourse” essentially reiter- ates Aristotle’s ideal socioeconomic loop by contemporizing the cause and effect cycle of material sustenance, moral virtue, and political stability that grounds the Politics and receives translation in the “Analysis.” Just as, for Aris- totle, colonies can contribute to the stability of a state, for Hakluyt, then, “yt behoveth this Realme yf it meane not to returne to former olde meanes and basenes, but to stande in present and late former honour, glorye, and force, and not negligently and sleepingly to slyde into beggery, to foresee and to plante at Norumbega or somme like place.”35 Hakluyt’s classically-inspired recommendations in the “Discourse” have a strong material component. England faced a number of economic challenges in 1584. On one hand, as Hakluyt points out, a long period of peace and a re- duced incidence of disease had led to problems of overpopulation.36 Specifi- cally, there was not enough work to go around, a situation that increased the risk of social instability and crime. At the same time, the health of England’s foreign trade was diminished by a number of factors. In North Africa, Hak- luyt says, trade was hindered by the Spanish; in the Levant, by taxation and piracy; in France, by fraud and competition; in Flanders and the Low Coun- tries, by civil war; and in Scandinavia, the Baltic region, and Russia, by taxation and general uncertainty.37 England’s ability to import goods cheaply was also hampered by the excessive duties and tolls imposed by other European countries, in that “no forren commoditie that commes into England commes withoute payment of customme once twise or thrise before it comme into the Realme, and so all forren commodities becomme derer to the subjectes of this Realme.”38 Hakluyt cites unstable export markets and the excessive cost of imports as hindrances to England’s ability to sustain the basic material needs of its citizens. As a result, he says, “yt behoveth us to seeke somme newe and better trade of lesse daunger and more securitie, of lesse dommage, and of more advauntage.”39

35 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 115. 36 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28. 37 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 12–15. 38 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 116. 39 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 15.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

150 Imes

He proposes the establishment of colonies in Norumbega, which marks a territory loosely defined as modern New England, as a panacea to England’s economic woes. His schema is based on the creation of a new flow of raw materials and manufactured goods between England and its colonies. Many of the commodities that Hakluyt expected colonists to find in Norumbega were products of a Mediterranean climate: grapes, olives, oranges, lemons, sugar-cane, and so forth.40 All of these commodities were important staples for England, and all of them were, at the time, purchased from actual and potential enemies. Hakluyt cites England’s reliance on Spain for textile dyes and olive-oil, which was used to make soap required in the manufacture of cloth, to highlight the risk associated with England’s current source of essential raw materials.41 By importing commodities from its colonies instead, England could circumvent the exorbitant tariffs and levies of foreign markets and end its reliance on the commercial cooperation of its neighbours. In his optimism, Hakluyt writes that in Norumbega “the soyle yeldeth and may be made to yelde all the sever- all commodities of Europe, and of all kingdommes domynions and Territories that England tradeth withe, that by trade of marchandize commeth into this Realme.”42 The ambitiousness of Hakluyt’s vision in this respect is consistent with Aristotle’s favoured policy on the self-sufficient economic foundations of his ideal state. In the Politics, Aristotle writes that “every one would agree in praising the territory which is most entirely self-sufficing; and that must be the territory which is all-producing, for to have all things and to want nothing is sufficiency.”43 Adapting Aristotle’s point to the needs and the parlance of his day, Hakluyt notes that by importing goods from English colonies,

forren princes custommes are avoided, and the forren commodities cheapely purchased, they becomme cheape to the subjectes of England to the common benefite of the people, and to the savinge of greate Trea- sure in the Realme, whereas nowe the Realme becommethe poore by the purchasinge of forreine commodities in so greate a masse at so exessive prices.44

40 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 120–3. Hakluyt’s optimistic conception of the economic benefits to be gained from colonialism is based, to an extent, on “fallacious reasoning about the relationship between climate and latitude” (Kupperman 29). Norumbega is at roughly the same latitude as Spain, so Hakluyt anticipated a comparable agricultural output. 41 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 12. 42 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 115. 43 Aristotle vii.5.1326b28–30. 44 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 116.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 151

That is, with a secure, essentially internal source of inexpensive raw goods, England’s import market would become more self-sufficient to the economic advantage of the state. Colonies would also open up new export markets. Facing competition from Spain and the West Indies, England’s embattled textile industry was in danger of becoming “every day more base then other.”45 However, Hakluyt notes that because

the Savages of the graunde Baye and all alonge the mightie Ryver yt ron- neth upp to Canada and Hochelaga are greately delighted with any cappe or garmente made of course wollen clothe, their Contrie beinge colde and sharpe in the winter, yt is manifeste wee shall finde greate utteraunce of our clothes, … whereby all occupacions belonginge to clothinge and knitting shalbe freshly sett on worke … [and] many decayed Townes may be repaired.46

Hochelaga refers to the area around present-day Montreal. Hakluyt’s belief in an eastern Canadian textile market is linked to his repeated warnings about French competition in colonial and economic enterprises.47 In the “Discourse,” then, Hakluyt effectively lays out a strategy to undermine New France. Indig- enous peoples are thereby represented as a waiting market with untapped textile demands. Indeed, Hakluyt suggests that establishing colonies in Norum- bega would be prudent “were it not for any thinge els but for the hope of the vent [i.e., sale] of our wo[o]ll indraped, the principall and in effecte the onely enrichinge contynueinge naturall commoditie of this Realme.”48 According to Hakluyt’s plan, with a ready source of inexpensive commodities and a newfound export market for manufactured goods, England would approach economic self-sufficiency, a benchmark condition of Aristotle’s ideal state. A self-sustaining circuit of imports and exports, he says, would help to al- leviate the strain caused by overpopulation. England had “growen more popu- lous than ever heretofore,” and, with a lack of honest employment, crime was increasing.49 Hakluyt cites the disproportionate number of English pirates, when compared to the Portuguese and the Spanish, as an indication that the

45 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 115. 46 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28–31. 47 Hakluyt, “Discourse,” esp. chapter 15. 48 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 115. 49 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

152 Imes

many thousandes of idle persons … within this Realme, … having no way to be sett one worke be either mutinous and seeke alteration in the state, or at least very burdensomme to the common wealthe and often fall to pilfering and thevinge and other lewdnes, whereby all the prisons of the lande are daily pestred and stuffed full of them.50

In Hakluyt’s plan, colonies provide the needed outlet for both criminals and the unemployed, who, in turn, fulfill a valuable economic function with their labour.51 Many would live and work in the colonies extracting natural resourc- es for export, and thus provide England with cheap imports. At the same time, the colonists and their indigenous neighbours would furnish a market for England’s exports, and unemployed persons remaining in England would find jobs in reinvigorated manufacturing industries.52 Aristotle’s comment, quoted above, that the “entirely self-sufficing” state is “all-producing” is thus interpret- ed broadly in Hakluyt’s schema for England’s self-sufficiency: in the kind of English vertical monopoly proposed in the “Discourse,” to be “all-producing” would entail the state’s control over both the extraction of raw commodities and the manufacture of finished products. Moreover, Hakluyt maintains that crime and social instability would decrease in England as a result of the economic growth created by colonization, and that individuals would be “kepte from idleness, and be made able by their owne honest and easie labour to finde themselves without surchardginge others.”53 Hakluyt’s arrival at a correlation between the economic benefits of colonization and the improvement of the nation’s morality is essentially Aristotelian. For Aristotle, the relative economic stability of a state, including the extent to which the material needs of its citizens are met, influences the capacity of those citizens to be virtuous morally and spiritually and helps to uphold the state. Economic self-sufficiency is, therefore, a fundamental condition of a morally and spiritually self-sufficient state. Hakluyt, an ordained priest, introduces a modern religious dimension to his argument in his “Discourse” when he contemporizes the moral and spiritual elements of Aristotle’s political philosophy by focusing on the maintenance of the Protestant faith. The year 1584 was a time of crisis for Protestants. Wil- liam i, the prince of Orange, was assassinated in July while in Holland, and the duke of Parma was successfully waging war on militant Calvinists in Flanders.

50 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28. 51 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28. 52 Hakluyt, “Discourse,” esp. chapter 4. 53 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28. 31.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 153

Francis, the Duke of Anjou, died, ending the possibility of an English and French alliance, and the Duke of Guise’s Catholic League continued plans to supplant Elizabeth and place Mary Queen of Scots on the throne with the help of Catholic dissidents in England.54 In his “Discourse,” Hakluyt charges Eliza- beth, as England’s royal “defendour of the faithe,” to fulfill her religious duty by maintaining and enlarging the Protestantism of the Church of England.55 Both the maintenance and enlargement of the Church, in this respect, accord with England’s moral and spiritual self-sufficiency in an Aristotelian sense: the ability of English citizens to live good, virtuous lives as Protestants, and as citizens of a Protestant state, is promoted against the ambitions of its neighbors. Written at a time when England was only nominally at peace with Spain, Hakluyt’s discussion of English religious duties and responsibilities is based on Protestant/Catholic animosity, and he pits England’s “true and syncere Relligion” against the “filthie lucre” and “vaine ostentation” of Spain and the papacy.56 As proof of England’s need to be more assertive in defence of Protes- tantism, Hakluyt cites instances in which English merchants, trading in Span- ish territory, were forced by Spanish soldiers to renounce their religion, throw their Bibles into the ocean, and renounce their obedience to Elizabeth.57 Colo- nialism, again, is the panacea. Hakluyt notes that Spain’s power and influence in Europe stemmed directly from its colonies, and that Spanish actions in the New World provided a standard against which to judge England’s own colonial endeavours (or lack thereof).58 He describes Pope Alexander vi’s papal bull of 1493, which granted Spain the exclusive right to colonize most of North and South America, as an unjust obstacle to England’s own colonial growth. He argues that because Pope Alexander was Spanish, the papal bull was a conflict of interest; the pope, he says, acted out of fear and jealousy towards King Henry vii of England and, in general, overstepped his rightful authority by issuing a donation of sovereignty that was not equitable to other Christian nations.59 Hakluyt goes on to write, in his “Discourse,” that it is England’s religious duty to establish colonies in the New World to counter the Spanish and to redress the imbalance of power in Europe and abroad caused by the papal bull.

54 On this last point, I refer to the Babington Plot. See Shepherd. 55 Hakluyt, “Discourse,” esp. chapter 1, qtd. 8. 56 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 11. Hakluyt’s most vociferous denunciations of papal power are in chapter 19. 57 Hakluyt, “Discourse,” esp. chapter 2. 58 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 28. 59 Hakluyt, “Discourse” chapter 19.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

154 Imes

He identifies the missionary work of the Spanish as a particular example of the harm propagated by Pope Alexander’s donation. Although he credits the Spanish with spreading Christianity, Hakluyt decries Spain’s brutal treatment of indigenous peoples and cites corroboratory proof in the writings of historians Bartolomé de las Casas, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, and Girolamo Benzoni (Hakluyt’s “Peter Benzo de Milan”).60 Hakluyt maintains that the con- flation of wanton greed and religious motives undermined Spanish missionary work. In contrast to their Spanish counterparts, Hakluyt charges English missionaries with the responsibility of learning native languages and manners and customs so as to, “with discrecion and myldenes,” establish a peaceful, stable environment in which to teach the gospel.61 A context of mutual de- pendency would be established; natives would rely on England for religious salvation, and the English would gain military allies against the Spanish, access to America’s commodities, and a market for manufactured goods. Hakluyt thus rejects the violence and greed typical of the Spanish paradigm by proposing a balance between the material benefits of colonial expansion and the virtues of religious proselytization. In his schema, missionary work and the growth of Protestantism in the Americas facilitates the economic advantages of colonization. In a repeating Aristotelian cycle, development of a self-sustaining economy enhances England’s power and stability in Europe as a Protestant state, which enhances the economy. In arguing thusly, Hakluyt advances the humanist principle of vita activa: the public performance of a common duty in the conjunction of practical problems and moral philosophy.62 The creation of wealth, which raised humanist fears of corruption and degradation, is tem- pered by moral and religious considerations. Virtue begets wealth, wealth begets virtue, and England becomes self-sufficient morally and materially. After giving his “Analysis” and “Discourse” to Queen Elizabeth, Hakluyt returned to Paris, where he gathered materials for his magnum opus, The Princi- pal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (first ed. 1589, second ed. 1598–1600), a massive anthology of exploratory and colonial accounts. Concurrently to Hakluyt’s work, between 1585 and 1590 three failed attempts were made to establish a permanent settlement on the island of Roanoke, in present-day North Carolina. Ironically, in light of Hakluyt’s optimistic emphasis on the economic potential and moral and religious im- peratives of colonization, the Roanoke colony was primarily intended to serve as a military base for pirate raids against the Spanish treasure fleet, although

60 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 108–11. 61 Hakluyt, “Discourse” 8. 62 Fitzmaurice, esp. 20–25.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 155 mineral and agricultural experiments played a part, as did a sizeable civilian colonial population.63 Furthermore, it is regularly suggested by historians that, because Elizabeth did not grant Raleigh’s projects public funding, Hakluyt’s entreaty to her had no practical effect.64 However, while Elizabeth gave nothing to Gilbert’s 1583 voyage, as Robert Lacey records, Elizabeth supported Raleigh in a number of ways:

She lent her Tyger, a prime ship of the Royal Navy, donated £400 worth of gunpowder from the royal magazine and, in addition to her grants of wine and cloth licenses that enabled Walter to raise both ready cash and credit, gave Raleigh’s lieutenants the right to “take up” men and ships with press gangs, as in times of war.65

Nonetheless, the English failed to develop peaceful connections with the lo- cals at Roanoke, and the colony was abandoned, then repopulated, then abandoned again, then repopulated, and, at last, mysteriously disappeared.66 The lack of success at Roanoke, in the manner of Gilbert’s ill-fated 1583 expedition, delayed England’s expansion in the New World, and colonial projects stalled there (but not in Ireland) as the war with Spain intensified. In short, Elizabe- than England was not soon to become a self-sufficient, ideal polis as concerned its New World possessions. However, the failure of Hakluyt’s Aristotelian pro- gram highlighted the need to collect and study more data and more recorded experiences, so as to better appreciate the challenges of future colonial under- takings. Perhaps the immense documentary records of The Principal Naviga- tions indicate Hakluyt’s move in that direction. Nevertheless, while Hakluyt’s “Discourse” failed to spur England’s colonial growth and self-sufficiency, it rep- resents an ambitious, forward-looking attempt grounded in humanistic princi- ples. The Aristotelian aspects of the work, moreover, hold an entrenched place in the early history of colonialist rhetoric.

63 Kupperman 12. 64 For example, see Parks 96–8 or Payne 6–7. 65 Lacey 64. 66 The third Roanoke colony was established in 1587, but war with Spain made it impossible for English supply ships to return until 1590. When an English contingent finally made it back to Roanoke, the settlement was deserted. The fate of the “Lost Colony,” as it is called, remains an enduring mystery. See Kupperman and Miller.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access

156 Imes

Works Cited

Aristotle. “Politics.” The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard Peter McKeon. New York: Modern Library, 2001. 1113–1316. Armitage, David. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2000. Armitage, David. “Literature and Empire.” The Origins of Empire: British Overseas En- terprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century. Ed. Nicholas Canny. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford U P, 1998. 99–123. Cranz, Edward F. A Bibliography of Aristotle Editions 1501–1600. 2nd ed. Baden Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1984. Fitzmaurice, Andrew. Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colo- nisation, 1500–1625. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2003. Gosling, William Gilbert. The Life of Sir Humphrey Gilbert: England’s First Empire Build- er. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1970. Hakluyt, Richard. “Analysis, seu Resolutio Perpetua in Octo Libros Politicorum Aristo- lelis” (1583). British Library ms Royal 12. G. xiii. Hakluyt, Richard. “Analysis, siue Resolutio Methodica in octo Libros Politicorum Aris- tolelis” (1588). British Library ms Sloane 1982. Hakluyt, Richard. A Particuler Discourse Concerninge the Greate Necessitie and Mani- folde Commodyties That Are Like to Growe to This Realme of Englande by the West- erne Discoueries Lately Attempted, Written In the Yere 1584, by Richarde Hackluyt of Oxforde Known As Discourse of Western Planting. Ed. David B. Quinn and Alison M. Quinn. London: Hakluyt Society, 1993. Hakluyt, Richard. Divers Voyages Touching the Discoverie of America. London: Thomas Woodcocke, 1582. Hakluyt, Richard. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation, Made by Sea or Overland to the Remote and Farthest Distant Quar- ters of the Earth at any Time within the Compass of These 1600 Years. 3 vols. London: George Bishop, Ralph Newberie, and Robert Barker, 1598–1600. Hakluyt, Richard. The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoueries of the English Nation . London: George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, 1589. Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony. 2nd ed. Lanham: R owman and Littlefield, 2007. Lacey, Robert. Sir Walter Ralegh. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. Mancall, Peter C. Hakluyt’s Promise: An Elizabethan’s Obsession for an English America. New Haven: Yale U P, 2007. McConica, James B. “Humanism and Aristotle in Tudor Oxford.” English Historical Review 94.371 (1979): 291–317.

explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access

Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 157

Miller, Lee. Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of England’s Lost Colony. London: Jonathan Cape, 2000. Parks, George Bruner. Richard Hakluyt and the English Voyages. 2nd ed. Ed. James A. Williamson. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1961. Payne, Anthony. Richard Hakluyt – A Guide to His Books and to Those Associated with Him 1580–1625. London: Quaritch, 2008. Quinn, David B. The Hakluyt Handbook. Vol. 1. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1974. Quinn, David B. Richard Hakluyt, Editor: a Study Introductory of the Facsimile Edition of Richard Hakluyt’s Divers Voyages, 1582, to Which Is Added a Facsimile of A Shorte and Briefe Narration of the Two Navigations to Newe Fraunce. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1967. Ryan, Lawrence V. “Richard Hakluyt’s Voyage into Aristotle.” The Sixteenth Century Jour- nal 12.3 (1981): 73–84. Sacks, David Harris. “Discourses of Western Planting: Richard Hakluyt and the Making of the Atlantic World.” In The Atlantic World and Virginia, 1550–1624. Ed. Peter C. Mancall. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2007. 410–53. Schmitt, Charles B. John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens U P, 1983. Shepherd, J.E.C. The Babington Plot: Jesuit Intrigue in Elizabethan England. Toronto: Wittenburg, 1987. Sherman, William H. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renais- sance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1995. Simpson, Peter L. Phillips. A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Cha- pel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1998. Swanson, Judith A. and C. David Corbin. Aristotle’s Politics: A Reader’s Guide. London: Continuum, 2009. Taylor, E.G.R. The Original Writings and Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts. Vol. 1. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1935. Thorpe, Francis Newton. The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the State, Territories, and Colonies Now Or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. Washington, d.c.: Government Printing Office, 1909.

explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access