King David As a Model for Kingship in the English Renaissance

King David as a Model for Kingship in the English Renaissance

Word count: 26,434

Ellen Vanderstichelen Student number: 01100862

Supervisor(s): Prof. Dr. Guido Latré

A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics and Literature

Academic year: 2017 – 2018

Preface

From literature to Tudor history, the English Renaissance has always sparked an interest in me. It therefore did not take long to decide what the topic for my Master dissertation would be. Because the

Bible offers a combination of literature and history, providing the reader with tales offering an insight in Western history, I was keen on having a closer look at how it could have influenced the English monarchy from the Renaissance onwards, hoping to gain more insight in Tudor history and the influence of literature on society. By examining how the Old Testament tale of King David influenced the reign of Henry VIII, I hope that with this dissertation I have succeeded in combining my love for literature and history.

I have to admit that this fascination with English Renaissance history and literature was also fuelled by

Prof. Dr. Latré, whom I would not only like to thank for guiding me through this writing process, but also for the passion with which he taught, making Monday afternoon lectures suddenly less daunting.

I hope you enjoy reading this dissertation as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Ellen Vanderstichelen

Ghent, 22 May 2018

Table of Contents Preface ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 1. The English Reformation ...... 8 1.1. Henry VIII and the Way towards the Breach with Rome ...... 9 1.2. Populism ...... 12 2. Acts of Representation ...... 14 2.1. Henry VIII and His Search for Power ...... 15 3. The Question of David ...... 18 3.1. Similarities Between Two Monarchs ...... 20 3.2. King David Supporting the Protestant Cause ...... 22 3.3. King David’s flaws: A Threat to the Tudor Throne? ...... 23 3.4. King David’s Flaws: A Tudor King’s Advantage ...... 27 4. The Book of Psalms ...... 30 5. The Tudor Monarch’s Desire for Absolute Control ...... 33 5.1. Protestantism ...... 33 6. King Henry VIII: A Protestant Through Catholic Means ...... 35 6.1. Thomas Cromwell: A Threat to the King’s Authority ...... 37 6.1.1. Thomas Cromwell and Joab: Commanders in Chief ...... 40 6.2. King David and Deception ...... 41 6.3. Idolatry ...... 46 7. The English Bible ...... 50 7.1. Miles Coverdale: The Quest for an English Bible ...... 52 7.2. William Tyndale: Defender of the English Crown? ...... 58 8. Davidic Kingship and Tudor Dynasty ...... 63 8.1. Edward VI: A New Solomon ...... 63 8.2. Elizabeth I: Female Monarch, Masculine Rule ...... 64 8.3. Mary Tudor: The Importance of the Royal Word ...... 67 Conclusion ...... 69 Bibliography ...... 72 Appendices ...... 76 Appendix A ...... 76 Appendix B ...... 77 Appendix C ...... 78 Appendix D ...... 79

Appendix E ...... 81 Appendix F ...... 82 Appendix G ...... 89 Appendix H ...... 91

Introduction

Sixteenth-century England saw the arrival of a new sense of identity, characterized by the idea that one could shape or “fashion”, as Greenblatt terms it (1), one’s own persona. However, this does not imply that early modern individuals had the power to decide how to portray themselves, as self-fashioning was driven by social, intellectual, psychological and aesthetic tendencies which fell under the control of family, religious and governmental institutions (Greenblatt 1-2).

If Greenblatt is correct, it was not until the 16th century that one saw the full potential of shaping one’s identity as a force to mislead and betray (Greenblatt 1-2). If one wanted to manipulate the perception of identity through the act of self-fashioning, one needed to make adjustments in appearance as well as behaviour as one’s character needed to be reflected in both speech and manners (Greenblatt 3).

Institutions sought inspiration in literature (Greenblatt 3), searching for literary heroes who could serve as models to which one’s character could be shaped. Based on their knowledge of literary models, the audience would ascribe the same virtues and qualities onto the individual who takes after the honourable hero. As a result, the distinction between fiction and reality began to fade (Greenblatt 3). This proved to be useful in the act of manipulation of which the reign of Henry VIII serves to be an example, as the

Tudor king found inspiration in the Old Testament King David (King, Tudor Royal Iconography, 11).

The association made between Henry VIII and David did not come as a surprise; it continued a medieval tradition (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11), and there were, according to Henry Tudor and his court, many similarities between the two monarchs.

What is common in many scholarly texts concerning the subject of David and Tudor iconography is the question: “Why David?”. Perhaps so many have written about this subject because no singular answer can be found to the question. The question of David will recur in this dissertation as well and will prove to be difficult to answer. However, this dissertation aims to provide a complementary perspective on the use of Davidic imagery as a tool for the consolidation of power.

Previous literature has widely reported on King David and Henry VIII’s shared interests and talents

(King, Tudor-Craig) and how the biblical king’s flaws (being born a shepherd and his great sin) could form a threat for monarchs fashioning themselves a new David (Prescott), however, with this dissertation

I will try to show how the similarities between the biblical king and Henry VIII, together with what can be defined as David’s flaws, were used in support of the Tudor king’s reign.

In exploring the question of David, it is important to keep in mind the sociological and historical shifts

Tudor England faced during Henry VIII’s reign which gave rise to instability throughout the realm. It can be argued that Henry saw it as his task to bring back order in all layers of Tudor society, for which he demanded total submission. This desire for absolute control emerged from the events marking 15th century England viz. The battle of Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses.

It was a time during which the legitimacy of Tudor reign was put into question. It is believed that Henry not being able to produce a male heir in his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was the starting point that set the Reformation into motion. Henry VIII’s offspring that could be considered as next heir in line were illegitimate and the Tudor king feared this would rekindle questions of the past, concerning the

Tudor dynasty’s claim to the throne (Parker 36).

The memory of recent history combined with the Tudor king feeling threatened by the increasing power of Rome, can provide a possible explanation for the exploitation of the image of King David as this is a continuation of the same measures his father took to secure his authority; Henry VII was one of the first to understand how images and cultural traditions could help to secure the throne (Sharpe 62,64). Prayers comparing Henry VIII’s father to King David or pageants in which the biblical king delivers “the sword of victory” (Sharpe 63) onto Henry VII are but few examples of how the Tudor king subjugated those areas within the realm, known for their Yorkist sympathies (Sharpe 63).

The idea that the exploitation of the image of King David during the reign of King Henry VIII can be connected to the Tudor king’s tendency towards absolute rule will form the focal point of this dissertation. It will explore how historical and sociological shifts in Tudor England can be tied back to the manipulation of the figure of David, how the biblical king became a refuge for Henry VIII, whose reign was marked by political and religious reform and how King David served as a veil to cover the

Tudor king’s true intentions of absolutism.

Based on literary analysis, I will discuss how political and religious reform may have led to changes in representation, how these shifts affected Tudor iconography and how Henry VIII opting for King David as a representational model was both a continuation and innovation of medieval tradition (Chapter 1). It will also discuss how Henry VIII used the reformation as an instrument of deceit and corruption and how this can be linked to present-day politics. Chapter 2 will have a closer look at how sixteenth-century rulers were concerned with their own visual display and how their reign was presented and, will discuss how monarchs like Henry VIII found inspiration in biblical archetypes such as Moses, David and

Solomon (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11). Chapter 3 will explore the similarities between King

Henry VIII and King David and how these were implemented in the Tudor king’s policy of absolute reign. It will also argue that David’s flaws, such as his great sin and him being born a shepherd and not a king, became Henry VIII’s strength instead of his weakness. Chapter 4 continues to explore the similarities between the Tudor king and David, by looking at how Henry VIII aligned himself with the biblical king through David’s Psalms and how he used David’s writing in support of his reign.

Furthermore, I will discuss how both Protestantism and the image of David became instruments of deception and formed a veil to cover the king’s true intentions of absolute rule and how the power of the written word, of which the English Bible is an example, became a powerful tool in Henry’s subjugation of his realm (Chapter 5,6 and 7). Finally, I will have a closer look at how Henry VIII’s exploitation of Davidic imagery affected the iconography of his successors, Edward VI and Elizabeth I, in their struggle to hold on to the royal sceptre (Chapter 8).

1. The English Reformation

To grasp the significance of the figure of David for the legitimation of Henry’s absolute power one should study the beginning and development of the Reformation. As all revolutions, the Reformation did not happen overnight, but was a gradual process of which the beginning can be traced back to the

Middle Ages.

In present-day society a legitimate government is generally accepted to be the state’s sole authority having the power to enforce institutions, like the church and other religious institutes, allowing them to exercise authority upon members of society Although they can dictate line of thinking and conduct to their members, in the hope they will obey, a religious institution cannot force their disciples to follow their laws without the state’s consent. The Medieval conception of rule, however, saw this differently

(Parker 3).

During the Middle Ages there were not one, but two bodies of authority. Every citizen needed to obey the state whilst at the same time they were obliged to answer to the Church institution, with the Pope at its head. It was also expected from the head of state, kings and emperors, that they obey the Pope’s rule, even though it was believed that sovereigns received their power to govern directly from God, without intermediary (Parker 3).

The church had the power to demand government to enforce Christian law and put it into practice. In doing so, the church was able to dictate its own law with unconditional state support, whether the latter approved of it or not. This established a society in which the church decided on “the Christian moral code” (Parker 4) and had the power to punish those not acting in accordance with it. Only, when the ecclesiastic powers failed to re-establish order throughout the realm did they turn to the state for support.

State government did not have the authority to develop laws of their own without church approval. In theory one may argue that the king or emperor was head of state, but in reality, the Pope took in this position, for his judgment and laws reached beyond the borders of Rome (Parker 3-5).

This was the general condition in Western medieval society before the Reformation. Monarchy detesting church authority and privilege, is what drove England towards the Reformation. Henry VIII was ready to take over control of that which the church claimed to be rightfully theirs (Parker 5,8).

According to Parker, English sixteenth-century laymen were generally comfortable with the country’s religious beliefs and church tradition (Parker 15). The attendance of Sunday masses was high and regular church visits on weekdays were not unlikely (Parker 12). Religious instability and protest can therefore be questioned, and one may wonder whether this was not fuelled by the king’s desire to rule on his own.

Being a faithful churchgoer does not imply, however, that every parishioner agreed with ecclesiastical practices as the interruption of church law in everyday life and its costly, and often dishonest, legal procedures, caused discomfort amongst citizens (Parker 10).

This did not go unnoticed at court and was used by Thomas Cromwell as an argument against the church and its autonomous rule. The argument in favour of abolishing the current system of law was summarized in the Petition of the Commons against the Ordinaries (Parker 11). This marked the beginning of Government’s war against ecclesiastical liberties and proved to be useful in Henry’s determination of bringing ecclesiastical powers under his control (Parker 18).

1.1. Henry VIII and the Way towards the Breach with Rome It can be argued that the attack of the Roman Catholic Church by royal court was a disguise, taking the form of what would later be defined as Protestantism, to legitimise Henry’s desire of absolute power, as reformers at court, such as Gardiner, Cromwell and Dudley, used their religious conviction in the service of deceit and corruption (Parker 14). According to Parker, Henry VIII set the example. The king had a way in bringing his conscience and religion in harmony. Henry declared his love for Anne Boleyn in letters addressed to the queen’s lady in waiting, before any authority declared his marriage illegitimate,

Henry said to be “confessing every day and receiving his Maker at every feast” (qtd. In Parker 15). In

1533, he declared to Chapuys, Imperial Ambassador, serving Charles V, that his conscience and God were in peace with one another (Parker 15). This does not imply the king and his servants not being devout believers, but it questions their notion of religion (Parker 14-15). This exemplifies how religion

was exploited by Henry and his court to make it fit the Tudor cause, which was based on, absolute power.

Henry’s desire for absolute power was a gradual process that saw its beginning in the king’s conviction of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon being illegitimate in the eyes of God. This was based on the fact that Catherine was his late brother Arthur’s former wife and it was believed that when a man and woman were united in marriage, they became one and that accordingly the husband’s family became his wife’s and vice versa. Following this line of thought, Henry was once regarded as Catherine’s brother, therefore a marriage between them should have been impossible. However, at the time of Arthur’s death, a new marriage was thought important for state matters, which allowed the wedding between Henry and

Catherine to take place (Parker 34).

There were certain conditions by which the Pope had the power to dissolve a marriage, of which the union between a brother and sister is one. Although, at the time of Henry and Catherine’s wedding Julius

II had allowed the marriage to take place, there still was the possibility to declare his decision as one that “had exceeded [the pope’s] powers” (Parker 34-35).

Henry’s troubled conscience was one of the main reasons he turned to the Pope. The Tudor king was unable to reconcile his religious beliefs with his conscience, in spite of the claims made in his love declaration to Anne Boleyn. Henry’s agony was fuelled by the book of Leviticus declaring that a marriage between a man and his brother’s wife was forbidden and that this would result in a marriage unable to produce an offspring (Parker 36-37,41): “Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness (Lev. 18:16). “And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness: they shall be childless” (Lev.20:21).

Therefore, Henry was convinced that given the evidence, the Pope had the power to declare Henry’s marriage to Catherine unlawful.

The Pope not granting the Tudor king’s wish did not cause the breach with Rome, and it is even questioned whether Henry, in 1539, anticipated a radical break with the Pope (Parker 41, 46). The Tudor monarch appeared to be more occupied with threatening to crush the power of the English Church, if

the king did not receive a favourable arrangement regarding his marriage to his late brother’s wife, than with the outlining of Royal Supremacy.

To put pressure on Rome, those advising the king, thought it wise to gather opinions from centres of learning in favour of the Henry’s cause and to send these to the Pope. The king’s delegates who were send to Cambridge and Oxford relied on deception and threats to gain opinions in support of the king’s annulment. Support was also found on the continent, Italian universities were blackmailed and in France,

Francis I put pressure on French universities (Parker 49). Although the sources’ reliability is doubtful,

Henry succeeded in gathering a list of scholarly advice on the matter which he sent to Pope Clement VII in July 1530. The Pope sent word in September, declining the king’s “request” (Parker 50).

It can be argued that Henry VIII used models such as David to sell the image of him being a king of the people, concerned with defending the rights of the realm, while in fact legitimising his right of absolute rule. The Tudor king and his court decided to take on a different strategy in their battle against Rome and called on parliament in 1529, what would later become known as the “Reformation Parliament” which sat until 1536 (Parker 50-51).

Henry realised that the fight with Rome was a fight between him and Pope Clement VII. The Tudor monarch wanted to present his beliefs about what the nation stood for, and therefore he and the nation needed to become one united front. According to Henry, the best means to achieve this was through

Parliament (51). The Reformation Parliament presented the king’s convictions as the opinion of the common people. However, it can be questioned whether this was correct. It is true that people were critical of ecclesiastical rule, but those opinions were more present among the higher social classes seated in the Commons: “royal officials, country gentry, and town burgesses” (Parker 52). Thomas

Cromwell set up a list of anti-clerical notions in the Petition of the Commons against the Ordinaries and presented these as the opinion of the common citizen, in the hope that, as this put forward the grievances of the layman, Parliament would act upon it. This illustrates how population is manipulated to believe that what the king or government desires is what the population desires.

1.2. Populism When looking at present-day society, one may see similarities between Henry VIII’s policy and modern- day populism. As populism occurs in democracies of representation one cannot simply claim that

Henry’s reign is an early form of populism. However, there are some similarities that can help one understand the mechanisms that helped sell the Tudor king’s absolutism to his people.

As mentioned, the 16th century was the first age in which people were more emphatically aware of their identity and that it could be shaped. According to Greenblatt, identities are shaped by distancing the self from a “threatening other" (8). This enemy can be discovered or can be brought to life through one’s imagination but needs to be destroyed for order to return (Greenblatt 8).

This is also characteristic for populists who present their opponents as morally corrupt enemies, threatening state order that need to be excluded (Müller 3-4). Henry VIII found his opponent in Pope

Clement VII, especially as the latter jeopardized the king’s authority. Henry VIII presented this as a danger, threatening the entire realm. It is said that populists are directed by motives of fear, anger or frustration (Müller 12), Henry Tudor was said to be frustrated and enraged with church liberties (Parker

8). He presented his resentment as the frustrations of the common people in the Petition of the Commons against the Ordinaries (1529), which was used in Parliament as a support for the king’s policy (Parker

52). In fact it can be questioned whether the king’s subjects felt as strongly about the ecclesiastical power as the Tudor king and whether the opinion of the people was not exaggerated. This can be compared to populists making their supporters believe they are acting according to their voters’ instructions, while in fact they are operating on the basis of their interpretation of the common people’s will (Müller 31) This gives the impression that populists represent the “real people” (Müller 27), but in reality, they are acting according to their own agenda. In fact, that what makes their opponents policy corrupt, according to populists, is what makes their own policy corrupt (Müller 49). Henry VIII wanted to replace the old system, which according to the king was morally dishonest, with a new establishment that claimed as its own what was once considered church authority. Ecclesiastical power was transferred onto the king. Henry, therefore, acted according to the same corrupt church policies but presented this as a better order.

While everyone knows, including their voters, that populists belong to high society (Müller 30), standing above the common people, they still make their supporters believe that they are just like them, that “they are men […] of the people” (Müller 32-33). To establish this belief of being “one of them” (Müller 32), the voter has to be able to identify with the populist leader, he needs to feel connected (Müller 35).

According to Sharpe, this need first occurred in early modern England. This was a time when people more than before, wanted a monarch they could relate to, a sovereign that was, or at least seemed, approachable (Sharpe xxviii).

To become a king of the people, court turned to acts of representation. Henry VIII found a representational model in the biblical King David, who proved suitable to sell new government policy.

2. Acts of Representation

In an age of political and religious reform representational concerns at court took on a prominent role, as Sharpe argues “political crises were inevitably bound up with crises of representation” (55). This is especially current during the reign of Henry VIII, whose actions caused division throughout the realm and threatened to shatter the king’s image of Fidei Defensor and Protector of the Catholic Church

(Sharpe 68). Henry’s position as king was in danger of being questioned and to avoid chaos and public revolt, the Tudor king was forced to rethink his authority and to find new ways to present his regency

(Sharpe 68).

Sharpe believes that from Tudor rule onwards, royal authority was shaped through a process of negotiation between sovereign and subject instead of absolute command (7). The process of negotiation involved what would today be recognised as advertisement: “to entice, persuade and draw consumers to a product by selling a lifestyle it promises” (Sharpe 6).

Sharpe compares this early modern desire for a ruler to be both admired and relatable, to the mechanism behind what makes present-day politicians popular and loved by the population. It can be argued that those who govern Western society are not exclusively those in office, but to a very large extent also figures of popular culture, those who excel in sports, pop-stars, actors, models, etc. It is therefore common for politicians to draw on popular culture and align themselves with its heroes to gain public support and authority (Sharpe 6).

Using and exploiting that which is familiar will allow those in power to find public support, as Sharpe believes that to legitimise control one should appeal to traditions and a nation’s past (12). It can be argued that paradoxically, a sovereign’s reliance on cultural heritage allows him to break with tradition and introduce change. This questions whether Henry VIII used the tradition of monarchs to represent oneself as King David, to make gradual alterations without losing, or at least partially losing, public support. In other words, using that what is familiar to manipulate and win over the hearts of his royal subjects.

Concerns on how to present the Tudor monarchy did not first occur during the reign of Henry VIII but occupied the minds at court from the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) onwards, until the death of

Elizabeth I, the last reigning Tudor (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 4). It would be wrong to conclude however that prior to the Tudor dynasty, monarchs and aristocracy were not troubled with what

Greenblatt defines as “self-fashioning”, but it took on a more prominent role during the Renaissance

(Greenblatt 1). Rulers of early Western Europe were concerned about their own visual display as well as how their rule and authority were presented (Sharpe 130). This change of attitude also left its mark on the perception of power, the sovereign’s authority and display (Sharpe 129).

Like many before, Tudor iconographers found inspiration in the Bible (King, Tudor Royal Iconography

7). From the Middle Ages onwards the Old Testament lives of great men like Moses, David and Solomon were used as a defence in conflicts with Rome. King David was a suitable model for founding a kingdom in this world, mirroring the one in heaven. It was therefore common to fashion medieval rulers as new

Davids to bring forward their power and ability to re-establish, within the Roman empire, the glorified

Hebrew kingdom (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11).

2.1. Henry VIII and His Search for Power One may wonder why the Tudor king was keen on creating a united front in his fight against Rome and why he was concerned with how the public perceived him as monarch and what they thought of the matter. It would be naïve to think Henry VIII really wanted to be a popular king. It can be argued that the reason why he appeared to be concerned with the public needs and their complaints was because he realised he needed the nation’s support to overthrow the significant power Rome had managed to establish within the realm of England - mainly through the monasteries and the network of parishes. In order to win the public’s support, he needed their favourable opinion (Parker 51). Sixteenth century public opinion should not be understood as the thoughts and beliefs of the population, but as the level of willingness amongst the king’s subjects to accept government rule without protest (Parker 101).

This desire for public approval was also fuelled by Henry’s realization that as long as the ecclesiastical powers dominated public control, the realm would obey the Pope instead of him, the king of England.

According to Parker, Henry was convinced that “obedience to the papacy was incompatible with civil

obedience” (Parker 50). Henry declared these concerns in a speech he brought before members of the

Commons:

Well-beloved subjects, we thought that the clergy of our realm had been our subjects wholely,

but now we have well perceived that they be but half our subjects, yea and scarce our subjects:

for all the prelates at their consecration make an oath to the pope clean contrary to the oath that

they make to us, so that they seem to be his subjects and not ours: the copy of both the oaths I

deliver here to you, requiring you to invent some order to that we be not thus deluded of our

spiritual subjects (qtd. in Parker 55).

To become the sole authority of England he needed to subjugate the clergy, claiming as his own what was once ecclesiastical power. Therefore, the king demanded first and foremost that no new edicts could be passed by Convocation without the king’s approval. Secondly that the new canons should be brought before a commission of clergy and parishioners who would decide which parts to be omitted and that finally the revised list of canons would be brought before the king to give his consent (Parker 55). Henry also put forth the demand for the clergy to recognise him as Supreme head of both church and state.

Convocation agreed on a diluted version of the king’s new title acknowledging Henry as Supreme head

“as far as the law of Christ allowed” (Leithead). Although it did not grant the king’s wishes completely, the Act of Supremacy, however diluted, was now adopted in state law, granting Henry more rights and paved the way for further adaptations (Leithead).

On 16 May 1532, the clergy handed the king the Submission of the Clergy, declaring they agreed with the king’s requests. Now, the Tudor king was one step closer to gain absolute control, for even though

Parliament and Convocation could propose new laws, they could not pass them without Henry Tudor’s consent. Aside from his desire of total control, one should not forget how Henry Tudor and his court came to this point in the first place: his marriage to Catherine. Bringing English clergy under his dominion, could enable him to demand from them to declare Catherine to be his unlawful wife (Parker

56).

William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1503-1532) was known for his devotion to the old system and his support of the Pope, but when he died in August 1532, Henry saw his chance. (Parker 57) As a strong supporter of the new understanding of kingship and not being afraid to challenge Rome, Thomas

Cranmer proved to be a suitable substitute of the late Archbishop. However, the assigning of a new

Archbishop demanded the Pope’s consent, which Clement VII granted despite the advice of many arguing against this.

After Cranmer officially became Canterbury’s new Archbishop, Parliament passed the Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1533. Apart from it declaring the king being both head of church and state, it announced that from that moment on, the Archbishop would deal with matters of matrimony, testimony and church taxes which henceforth would no longer be passed on to Rome.

After the Act was passed, Henry made convocation confirm that it is unlawful for a man to marry his brother’s wife. This allowed Archbishop Cranmer to dissolve the marriage between Henry VIII and

Catherine of Aragon and recognise the new marriage between the Tudor king and Anne Boleyn who was crowned queen without further delay (Parker 59-60).This led to the excommunication of the king by Clement VII, paving the way towards the total break with Rome (Parker 61) and the Act of

Supremacy.

This unauthorized sixteenth-century woodcut depicts Henry’s defeat of Clement VII and can still be seen in the National Portrait Gallery in London. The engraving pictures King Henry VIII trampling on Clement VII whilst delivering the Bible to Cranmer. Thomas Cromwell and Fisher are also portrayed. 1

1 The Pope suppressed by King Henry VIII, 1570, woodcut, National Portrait Gallery, London.

3. The Question of David

One cannot help but wonder how the Tudor king was able to sell his image as head of both state and church, or in other words, being in total control. To legitimise the replacement of absolute power of the church with the absolute power of monarchy can possibly be explained by devices of, what is better known today as, propaganda. Exploiting the image of King David, to represent the Tudor king, and

Protestantism are an example of this while in fact it can be defined as a disguise to legitimise Henry’s absolutism.

Although government portrayed the Royal Supremacy as a fulfilment of the people’s wishes, the sixteenth-century Englishman cared little for these alterations, for matters of the royal divorce, the defining of authority and whether the Crown could rule both church and state, did not lie within the borders of the parishioner’s understanding. It was not until alterations in law started to affect the sixteenth-century layman’s religious life, with the dissolution of monasteries, that people started to utter criticism (Parker 77). Dissolving the monasteries led in many cases to a disruption of the existing system of social security, which in its turn led to a dangerous rebellion in the North of England (the “Pilgrimage of Grace” 1536-37)

To legitimise Henry’s absolute control of both church and state affairs, David proved to play a key role.

It is therefore important to keep in mind that it was not until the break with Rome that King David was used to represent Henry VIII (Sharpe 26).

Government found evidence to support the legitimation of Henry’s absolute control of church and state affairs in the Old Testament and archaic church archetypes. Those were collected in the Collectanea satis copiosa which, according to court council, proved that just like David, English kings had the right to be sovereign of both church and state. It was the Collectanea that helped convince Henry he was entitled to be Supreme head of the Church of England. This document was also used to justify the above mentioned Act in Restraint of Appeals, by declaring that:

“by dyvers sundrie olde authentike histories and cronicles it is manifestly declared and

expressed that this realme of Englond is an Impire, and so hath ben accepted in the worlde,

governed by oon Supreme heede and King having the Dignitie and Roiall Estate of the Imperiall

Crowne of the same” (qtd. in Eppley 15-16).

As mentioned earlier, from the Middle Ages onwards Old Testament archetypes such as Moses, David and Solomon were used as armour in conflicts with the Pope (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11). It is therefore not surprising that Tudor iconographers returned to the Bible for inspiration. Reformers at court in particular, saw opportunities in the figures of David, Solomon and Moses and sought for similarities between the biblical kings and the modern-day Tudor rulers. This allowed those in charge to advertise court, to celebrate Henry VIII as King David and his son Edward as a new Solomon (King,

Tudor Royal Iconography 8)

As a result, aligning Henry with the biblical King David is not a particular reformist feature (King,

Tudor Royal Iconography 8, 56), but a continuation of a medieval tradition, adapted to the current circumstances. Reformers took Old Testament types such as David as a literary vehicle to deal with religious instability brought along by the Protestant-Catholic conflict and to re-establish continuity and instability throughout the realm.

3.1. Similarities Between Two Monarchs Initially, Henry VIII found inspiration in the Arthurian past to display his royal authority. Although he presented himself as a descendant of the glorious King Arthur at first, as his reign progressed, he gradually lost interest in the topic and was drawn to the biblical King David (Tudor-Craig 191).

However, taking an interest in Arthurian history can also be tied back to David, for many authors took samples from the story of David and incorporated it in the “legend of King Arthur” (King James Bible

502).

The question arises in what manner Henry’s admiration of David is based on the biblical king’s history, and how this history was projected onto the Tudor king and Tudor society. In other words, one may wonder how the life of David could be shaped to fit Henry VIII’s manners and lifestyle.

His identification with David was given additional strength through similarities between the two monarchs. Like David, Henry found inspiration and pleasure in music and the composition of texts

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 16, 76). According to Tudor-Craig, King Henry even associated himself with David as author of the Psalms, which can be derived from the annotations made in his personal Psalter. The Tudor king did not question whether the Psalms were directed to him but immediately put himself in the position of the author (195).

Henry VIII’s Psalter is a Latin manuscript written by Jean Mallard, a preacher from France serving at the court of the Tudor king. The manuscript presents Henry as a new David. As mentioned, the image of David as archetype of ideal kingship was not first applied during Henry VIII’s reign, but can already be found in medieval psalters and other royal texts. What makes the King’s Psalter different is Mallard’s adaptation of the psalms to contemporary conditions. Throughout the manuscript, illustrations are used to depict Henry as a present-day David (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 76-77) Mallard envisaging

Henry sitting in a chamber at court with lyre in hand reminds the reader of David playing the instrument to sooth Saul (Appendix A) as well as Henry’s talent to compose music (King, Tudor Royal Iconography

76). Henry VIII being depicted carrying lyre in hand, is similar to the illustration of David playing his harp, portrayed at the lower left of a Hans Holbein’s woodcut used for the Coverdale Bible title-page

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 76). The harp symbolises David’s professed authorship of the Psalms

(Ranking and Latré). Therefore, by portraying Henry VIII playing the harp, the same associations between the Tudor king and authorship are invoked.

Alongside Psalm 96, Henry is portrayed in prayer, kneeling before an angel carrying sword, rod and skull, asking to be delivered from his enemies (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 78) (Appendix B).

During the 1530s the psalm was given additional meaning when England was threatened to be enclosed by Catholic forces from oversees; Francis I of France, Pope Clement VII and the Habsburg empire

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 79).

The psalter was written during the devastating months following the death of Jane Seymour and reached the king two months after he received news of Catherine Howard’s adultery and thirty-seven days before she was brought to the scaffold. King Henry took from the psalter that which he could apply onto his own life. In David’s psalms he found support for his hatred towards Catherine Howard (Tudor-Craig

194-195) as well as advice on how to govern the country, on royal conduct, and on how to deal with religious matters (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 79).

3.2. King David Supporting the Protestant Cause The associations made between Henry and David were also stimulated by those at court having

Protestant sympathies, who saw potential in the figure of David to bring order to a country divided due to religious instability (Sharpe 6, King, Tudor Royal Iconography 8). Protestants saw in David a legitimation for Henry VIII dissolving the Roman Catholic Church. As David is the ancestor of Christ, the biblical king is regarded as an intermediary between heaven and earth, bringing God and the people together (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 59). By presenting Henry as David, the Tudor king was given the power to control both church and state without the Pope or any church representative as intermediator

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 56).

Another example of the exploitation of King David for the Protestant cause can be found in the Tudor reading of David and his encounter with Goliath. This account offered a suitable framework to legitimise and find support for the Act of Supremacy, by which Henry’s victory over the papacy was compared to

David slaying Goliath (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 80). According to Henry Parker author of The

Exposition and Declaration of the Psalme, Deus Ultionum Dominus (1530), the defeat of Rome was predicted in Psalm 94, as Parker believed it to be a prophecy (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 80) in which the pope is addressed as the “gret Golyas [Goliath]” (Parker 7). This scene is illustrated in the

King’s Psalter in which Henry VIII is portrayed as David slaying Goliath (Appendix C) (Tudor-Craig

197).

A Holbein woodcut that serves as the Coverdale Bible’s title page offers another example of Henry

VIII’s representation of David. In all bibles published under Henry VIII one can find the figures of

Moses and David flanking the borders of its covers. Both figures were widely used as models of ideal kingship (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 56). But what makes Holbein’s woodcut so fascinating is that it embodies the Protestant movement as it portrays the complexity that comes with the Protestant ideas of “authorship, authority and authorization” (King, “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan Iconography”

44) and how these concepts interact.

First of all, Holbein re-shapes the tradition of the “dedication portrait” in which an author or translator offers a manuscript or book copy to a patron saint (King, “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan

Iconography” 44). In traditional medieval iconography it is Christ who offers the book to Paul whilst at the same time delivering the keys to Peter. However, Holbein has replaced the figure of Christ by Henry

VIII, offering the book to the prelates kneeling before him. Another rather remarkable alteration is the replacement of Peter by David. It is likely that the omitting of Peter was motivated by his association with Rome. The adjustments of traditional biblical iconography continued in the years to follow. Four years after the publication of the Coverdale Bible, the Great Bible was presented. Its title page elevated

Holbein’s depiction of Henry VIII’s glorified status by replacing the Tetragrammaton with the Tudor king. This is unusual considering Protestants’ renouncement of the anthropomorphic images of the deity.

Protestants were reluctant of portraying God as a human as they believed that as God is not visible to the naked eye and “universally immanent” (Parker 153) he should not be depicted in the shape that is limited in time and space. Therefore, Protestant artists agreed on presenting the deity in the form of a tetragrammaton which took on the shape of the sun, cloud or flame (King, English Reformation

Literature 154).

So, from the Coverdale Bible up to the Great Bible, Henry VIII had evolved from the figure presenting the book to David (Appendix D), to the figure delivering the word of God directly to the people. In other words, David and Henry merged into one. Eventually by the year 1542, the Tudor king was identified with the biblical king (Tudor-Craig 192-193).

3.3. King David’s flaws: A Threat to the Tudor Throne? However glorious King David may have been, the biblical king did have his flaws, of which commitment of adultery with Bathsheba is one, so this may question whether the image of David did not raise suspicion amongst Tudor subjects.

One of the many things that makes the story of David remarkable, is how the biblical king evolved from a mere shepherd, taking care of his flock, to a king taking care of his people. It can be argued that from a Tudor perspective the strength of the story is at the same time its weakness, as it places questions as to what makes a king.

Considering King David’s history, one might regard it a risk for a monarch to portray himself a new

David. Whether this would cause the public to question the legitimacy of their monarch, has concerned many from the Renaissance onwards. To avoid “layered soil [to] become […] igneous or even volcanic” and “try to inherit the world” (Prescott 9), as the poet Andrew Willet so beautifully suggested in his satirical statement on King David’s confrontation with the giant Goliath, many Renaissance poets as well as clergy troubled their minds to prove David not to be a model for those aspiring to move up the social ladder (Prescott 18) but a model for those who already found themselves at the top of society: kings and clergy (Prescott 16-17) in the hope to nip shepherds’ idea of vertical mobility in the bud.

In John Jewel’s homilies (1571) for instance, the bishop used the story of David to warn the rebels by making a connection between the biblical king’s behaviour towards King Saul and the actions of contemporary subjects. If David refused to harm Saul, not a single person has the right to stand up against any king (Prescott 3-4). Victorinus Strigel, theologian and author of Proceeding in the harmonie of King Davids harpe points the people to the allegorical meaning of David’s role as shepherd, symbolizing our role as sheep with God as our shepherd (Prescott 4).

Therefore, kings should not be seen as real shepherds, as a shepherd continued to be low and a king remains his opposite. The story of David as a shepherd serves to remind those in power to take care of their flock (Prescott 16). Those having political ambition, those not afraid to take arms for their own benefit should take lessons from David, as it was not his own ambition or physical strength that made him king of the Israelites, but it was God who elected him (Prescott 18). Therefore, it is God and God alone who has the power to determine the course of accession (Prescott 2) and not one’s slyness or ambition.

That the ascendency to the throne, is an act of God’s doing, and not due to a person’s own ambition, is also voiced by the Prophet Samuel upon the accession of Saul. One should not doubt the judgment of

God in appointing his elect, and it is considered a sin to question and rise against God’s anointed:

It is the Lord that advanced Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land

of Egypt […]. When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the Lord, then the

Lord sent Moses and Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt, and made them

dwell in this place […]. And the Lord sent Jerrubbaal and Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered

you out of the hands of your enemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe. […] Now therefore

behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the Lord hath

set a king over you. If ye will fear the Lord, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel

against the commandment of the Lord, then shall bot ye and also the king that reigneth over you

continue following the Lord your God: but if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel

against the commandment of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was

against your fathers (1 Sam 12:6-15).

In the case of Henry VIII one might say that in his portrayal of King David, he turned his sceptre into a sheephook instead of the other way around.

Bishops and ministers are commonly known for carrying sheephooks (Prescot 14,16) for they are God’s representatives. God is described as a shepherd, guiding his flock as can be read in Psalm 23 “The Lord is my shepherd/ he maketh me lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside still waters/ he leadeth me in the path of righteousness for his name sake/ thy rod and thy staff the comfort me” (23:1-23:4).

There was a division in Europe concerning whether those in power were allowed to carry both sceptre and sheephook. According to some, the Pope was not allowed to yield after the royal sceptre as the

Pope’s sheephook can never prevail over or conquer the king’s rod (Prescott 15). However, it can be questioned whether this line of thought can also be applied on those carrying the princely sceptre. For once again the belief holds true that, as Thomas White preached in a sermon at Paul’s cross, “it is God in deede, by whose power all Princes do raigne” (qtd. in Prescott 4). Implying that if God decides who will rule the realm, the king receives his power directly from God and that his authority will dominate all other authority (Reeves 54). Therefore, the king is allowed to rule over church and define its doctrine or in other words the king is entitled to carry both sceptre and crook.

David being both shepherd and king proved suitable for the Tudor king, who saw it as his task to define the true faith. After David was anointed king of Israel, he assembled “all the chosen men of Israel, thirty

thousand” to “Baale of Judah” to collect the “ark of God”2 and bring it to “the city of David” (2 Sam

6:1-6:13). Upon arrival in the city of David, the ark was greeted with much rejoicing:

“And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod/

And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in his place in the midst of the tabernacle that

David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.

And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he

blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam 6:14-6:18)

The referred to linen ephod is a type of clothing worn by priests (King James Bible 573). The prophet

Samuel is also described to have worn a linen ephod when serving God (1 Sam 2:18). The choice of garment and the carrying of the ark of God into the city of David emphasises the biblical king’s ecclesiastic powers. This priestly function was useful for Henry VIII who took up the ecclesiastic task of defining the true faith.

That only God’s elect is allowed to come near the ark or the law of God, is exemplified by the death of

Uzzah. The cart upon which the ark of God was placed when traveling to the city of David was guided by the Israelites Uzzah and Ahio3. When Uzzah “put forth his hand to the ark of God […] the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God” (2 Sam 6:6-6:7). This implies that no one, except for those anointed by God, is allowed to touch the word of God, and in this case it can be taken literally.

By portraying himself a new David, Henry does not only emphasise him resembling the model of ideal kingship but also his ecclesiastic role. David is the only one allowed to carry the word of God, therefore

Henry is the only one entitled to bring forth the word of God and enlighten his subjects. Like David

2 The Ark of the covenant was a chest made of wood that could easily be transported. It was built to keep and protect “the tables of the law” (King James Bible 159) as they were revealed to Moses. At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. And I made an ark of the shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first and went up into the mount, having the two tables into mine hand. And he wrote on the tables, according to the first wring, the ten commandments, which the lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me (Deut 10:1-10:4). 3 Sons of Abinadab of whose house was previously used as carrier of the ark

brought God’s law into the city of David, Henry VIII will bring the word of God into his realm and no one is allowed to “put forth his hand to the ark of God and [take] hold of it” (2 Sam 6:6).

This serves as an example of how David’s strength could become a weakness for monarchs who fancy themselves to be David. It may be questioned whether this also holds true for David’s flaws: can they become a monarch’s strength?

However paradoxical this may sound, I believe, in the case of Henry VIII, David’s flaws could have helped build Henry’s authority. As Kilgore claims, David’s flaws are what made the biblical king human

(426), an aspect that became important in an age in which a need emerged for a monarch to be approachable (Sharpe XXVII), a ruler one could relate to while at the same time holding on to their reputation of being untouchable.

3.4. King David’s Flaws: A Tudor King’s Advantage David did not receive his royal title based on a system of heritage, it was God who decided the young shepherd would rule over Israel (Prescott 1). Considering Tudor history, starting with the decades marked by the Battle of Bosworth Field at the end of Wars of the Roses, which questioned the Tudors’ entitlement to the English throne on the basis of royal birth, it can be regarded strange that Henry VIII opted for King David as a representational model. However, as already mentioned, I believe David’s flaws could be used to the advantage of King Henry.

By casting himself in the role of David, Henry conveys the idea that like David, he too received his title through God. And, as David came to be known as a model of ideal kingship, the same must hold true for Henry VIII. Therefore, by portraying himself as David, Henry takes away the question of his legitimacy to the throne.

It can therefore be argued that King David’s flaws of being a mere shepherd and his questionable legitimacy to the throne, were used to the advantage of Henry VIII’s rule. However, one cannot help but wonder: what can be made of King David’s great sin, the commitment of adultery with Bathsheba and

the murder on her husband Uriah the Hittite? 4 To explain this episode, Protestants claim that through

David’s sin, one is taught how to repent (Kilgore 422). It allows one to witness the human side of royalty whilst setting an example on how to deal with sin. In The Obedyence of a Christian Man Tyndale writes:

The adultery of David with Barsabe is an ensample, not to moue us to euyll: But yf (whyle we

folowe the waye of ryghtousnes) any chaunce dryue us a syde, that we despere not. For yf we

sawe not suche infyrmytes in goddess electe, we whiche are to weke, and fall to ofte shulde

utterly despeare and thynke that god had cleane forsaken us. It is therefore a sure and an

undoubted conclusion, whether we be holy or onholy, we are all synners. But the defference is,

that goddess synners consente not to their synne. They cosent onto the lawe that is both holy

and righeous and mourne to haue theyr synne take a waye. But the deuyls synners consente unto

theyr synne and wolde haue the lawe and hell taken awaye and are enemyes onto the

ryghteousnes of god (Tyndale, The Obedyence of a Christian Man) (Appendix E)

By casting himself into the role of David, Henry allows the public to be witness to that which makes the king human. Tyndale believes, this will allow the parishioner to not feel desperate for being witness to the weakness of those elected by God, and proves that God has not abandoned those who are subject to the king’s rule (Tyndale, The Obedyence of a Christian Man) (Appendix E)

Important to the story of David is that his sin did not come without consequences. The biblical text itself makes it abundantly clear that David’s later misfortunes were a direct result of his sin, and that his hardships were therefore inflicted by himself (Kilgore 421). His adultery with Bathsheba, together with the murder of Uriah, brought the wrath of God upon David. The Lord punished David by “[striking] the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick” (2 Sam 11:15). “And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died” (2 Sam 12:18).

4 Upon one evening David sat “upon the roof of the king’s house and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon” (2 Sam 11:2). David requested the for the woman, whom he discovered to be Batsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, to be brought to him. That night David and Batsheba lay together and Batsheba was with child. Upon receiving the news, David requested Joab to bring Uriah. The king demanded Uriah to go home to his wife and “wash [his] feet” (2 Sam 11:8) meaning to refresh one self with a sexual connotation (King James Bible 580). Uriah felt inclined to stay with his troops close to David and did not follow the king’s command. David sent a letter to Joab requesting to place Uriah “in the forefront of the hottest battle and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die” (2 Sam 11:10-11:15).

One can further argue that Henry’s misfortunes were likewise the result of a sin. Henry’s suffering was inflicted upon the Tudor king by himself, however indirectly. Henry VIII being unable to produce a male heir was, according to the Tudor king, a punishment from God for him marrying his sister

Catherine of Aragon. As already explained Henry VIII was convinced that his marriage to Catherine was illegitimate. Being his late brother Arthur’s former wife, Catherine was, according to medieval law, previously regarded as Henry’s sister (Parker 34). Having been educated as a theologian, Henry VIII was familiar with the book of Leviticus. Leviticus declares that the marriage between brother and sister is forbidden and would be punished by declining them the possibility of a fruitful marriage (Parker 41).

King David admits to his crime and shows the reader that through severe penance, one’s sin can be set straight (Kilgore 419). Like David, Henry VIII admits that a sin has been committed, which lies at the base of his misfortunes. However, also adds an important twist to his interpretation of David’s predicament, claiming that unlike David he was unaware of the mistake he made. If it had not been for

Pope Julius II allowing the marriage between the Tudor king and Catherine to take place (Parker 34), the sin would not have been committed. His interpretation of the David story is therefore not devoid of inner contradictions. It takes considerable Henrician imagination to plead both guilty and innocent.

4. The Book of Psalms

Henry VIII pushing the blame away is also characteristic for the king’s dealing with David’s penitential and other Psalms. Although it is commonly known that it is highly unlikely for David to have written all the Psalms, the biblical king remains associated with them all (Kilgore 412-413).

The penitential Psalms are defined as such, because they were recited by those who had sinned in the hope to be re-admitted in the house of God. The penitential Psalms have some reoccurring features: the admission of being guilty, taking responsibility for one’s sin, self-blame, giving voice to the hardships imposed by God, and a plea for God to deliver the speaker from his agonies and restore the bond that unites the speaker to God (Kilgore 426).

The Psalms gave rise to many interpretations which are embedded in their translations. An important question one should ask is whether the speaker is the reader or the narrator. According to tradition, one tends to read the Psalms from a personal perspective (Kilgore 427) implying that the speaker is the reader. One reads the psalm to be restored to the house of God from which one is excluded because of one’s own wrongdoing. However, Tudor-Craig claims that Henry, upon reading the Psalms, never questioned whether the Psalms were directed to him, but immediately aligned himself with the author of the Psalms (195). This implies that Henry carries no blame, that he is not the one who has sinned but rather provides those who have, with instruments to lament and accept sharp penance. Once again, one finds an example of the Tudor king engaging in ecclesiastic tasks.

That the Psalms are directed to the reader is supported by Protestants such as John Calvin and Thomas

Wyatt. Calvin compares the Psalm to a glass that allows the reader or listeners to look inside their own minds to examine what ails him (Kilgore 427-428). In Wyatt’s interpretation of penitential Psalm 6,

David is not reflecting on himself, but holds out a mirror for the reader whilst underlining his own public and royal role (Kilgore 429).

An example of how one denies one’s share in the blame, can be found in Coverdale’s reading of Psalm

6. Initially it agrees with the features of the penitential tradition. The narrator gives expression to his suffering:

“My soule […] is sore troubled/ I am weery of my gronyng: every nyght wash I my bedde, and

water my couche with my teares” (qtd. in Kilgore 427). He also begs the lord to have mercy “O

lorde heale me for my bones are vexed/ but Lorde how longe wylt thou punyshe me?/ Oh save

me, for thy mercyes sake” (qtd. in Kilgore 427).

However, there seems to be no direct confession of guilt (Kilgore 427), giving the impression that the narrator pushes the blame away.

If Henry VIII read the Psalms as if directed to himself, he took from the Psalms that, which proved he was not to blame for his misfortunes. This can be derived from the king’s annotations in his personal psalter. The king’s notes on Psalm 31,37,38,41 and 69 (Appendix F) are all directed to passages referring to the narrator’s enemies, who seem to be the chief cause of his misfortunes. His annotations also emphasise his belief that God will punish “the unjust and impious” and reward “the just” (King, Tudor

Royal Iconography 79) the latter probably referred to the king himself.

In Henry’s annotations of Psalm 69, one can read the king begging God to be protected from his foes

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 79). The narrator finds himself in a situation of despair brought about by his enemies:

Deliver me because of mine enemies/ They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs

on mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty/ They

that gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:4,

69:18,69:21).

The narrator puts his trust in God to protect him against his foes in Psalm 41:2. In the King James Bible this Psalm is described as “Gratitude for deliverance from illness and from the malice of false friends and enemies” (997). Henry VIII’s annotations were directed to line 11 “By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me” (Psalm 41:11) besides which the king wrote “nota bene” (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 79) meaning literally “note well”.

The same tendency can be found in Psalm 31, in which the narrator asks the Lord to “have mercy upon

[him] from the hands of [his] enemies” (Psalm 31:15) because “they are acting against him” (Psalm

31:14). Next to line 6 “I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust the Lord” the king noted

“Those who the king abhors” (qtd. in Tudor-Craig 195).

The king’s notes in the previous three Psalms clearly suggest that the king is convinced that others are to blame for his hardship. The blaming of others is especially prominent in Psalm 38, another example of a penitential Psalm. What is remarkable in this Psalm is, that although the narrator admits to his sin, the attention is, yet again, drawn to the narrator’s enemies from which he asks to be delivered: “For I will declare my iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin/ But mine enemies are lively and they are strong: and they that hate me wrongfully are multiplied/ make haste to help me, O Lorde my salvation” (Psalm

38:18-19, 38:22).

Whether Henry took notice of the narrator admitting to his sin, can neither be confirmed nor denied.

However, it is remarkable that the king’s notes are primarily concerned with the punishment of his enemies, indicating he is not to blame for his sorrows, and less with the narrator’s lamentation.

5. The Tudor Monarch’s Desire for Absolute Control 5.1. Protestantism After the break with Rome, Tudor iconographers turned to King David to present Henry VIII as a ruler chosen by God (Sharpe 26). Those at court having protestant sympathies saw in David, a suitable framework to legitimise Henry VIII being Supreme Head of both church and state, and for the introduction of a new doctrine: Protestantism.

It can be questioned however, whether King Henry VIII was truly convinced of Protestant theology and whether he did not use its doctrine for his authoritarian ambitions. A first reason to doubt his devotion to the Protestant faith is the observation that throughout Europe, the Reformation was the direct result of the establishment of a new faith, whereas in England this was the other way around. Protestantism was established after the “constitutional revolution” and was not the incentive to it (Parker 6).

To understand why the description of Henry VIII to be a protestant king is questionable, one should have a closer look at Protestant doctrine. Protestantism emerged in northern Europe during the 16th century as a response to Roman Catholic practices and dogma. People opposed to church activities, of which elaborate financial support of the arts and “wars of conquest” (Nelson et al.) is an example. To finance these church projects, Rome used the money retrieved form indulgences5. Furthermore, reformers also criticized the practice of idolatry and the visiting of holy sanctuaries during which visitors were struck with amazement upon witnessing the relics of saints.

It did not take long for Protestantism to arrive at the court of Henry VIII. Criticism towards corrupt church practices and doctrine, proved to be useful in Henry Tudor’s fight against Rome. However, not every aspect of Protestant doctrine seemed to please the Tudor king and his policy of absolute control.

5 The selling of indulgences was based on the belief that together with Jesus, the saints “had build up a treasury of merit” (Nelson et al). Christians who proved to be worthy, were allowed to share in this “treasury”. Initially, indulgences could only be used for the punishment of offences on earth, defined by ecclesiastical powers, soon this was expanded to the punishments set by God in Purgatory. The rules on how to receive an indulgence were in the course of time so weakened that one could now buy one. The church soon discovered the benefits of the selling of indulgences, for it was a quick means to replenish the church coffer, as unlike church taxes, people were willing to pay. The money was used to finance bridges, cathedrals, etc. eventually, one could buy indulgences that secured “immediate release from purgatory” (Nelson et al). This enraged the German theologian and religious reformer Martin Luther, who saw the selling of indulgences as an abuse of the sacrament of Penance. According to Luther it was impossible to buy one’s “salvation” (Nelson et al).

What was central to Protestant theology was “the doctrine of justification by faith only” (Parker 97), which implied that a man’s connection to God came to exist through the mental activity of accepting

Christ as his Saviour and not, as claimed by Catholic dogma, through the sacrament of baptism (Parker

97-98). It was also believed that each individual could derive Christian doctrine through the autonomous reading of Scripture and that, although it could intensify one’s faith, sacraments did and could not grant grace. As a result, one could argue the church being disposable, as the role of the clergy as interpreter of Scripture and distributer of grace was unnecessary (Parker 97-98).

Those supporting the new religious beliefs agreed that changes needed to be made in the practice of worship. Protestant reformers were repugnant towards the adoration of saints and believed that the reading of Scripture in public received too little attention. Protestants were strong advocates for the practising of service in the vernacular as up to then this was still performed in Latin, which, according to Protestants hindered one’s access to the innate experience of religion (Parker 99). Eventually, this resulted in a demand for the translation of the Bible in the layman’s native tongue.

To summarize, the Protestant’s aim, was first and foremost the simplification of practices of worship and church services. Secondly, it was the translation of the latter into the vernacular and finally the exclusion of all that would convey false ideas and introduce the Gospel as they perceived it (Parker

100).

Based on Protestant doctrine, one could argue that the church parishioners did not need a bishop nor any member of clergy as an intermediator between heaven and earth and that each man was capable of receiving Christian doctrine through individual reading of Scripture, provided it being translated into the vernacular. This confiscated church control, much to the king’s delight, but allowed the parishioner to control religious experience. But where did ecclesiastical control and the subjective experience of faith leave the king?

6. King Henry VIII: A Protestant Through Catholic Means

It soon became clear to devout Protestants such as Lutherans, that the king did not conceive the Gospel as they did but, that the “Gospel according to Harry” (qtd. in Parker 92) was the richness of the church.

It is therefore likely that the king, if he had had the opportunity, would have opted for either taking on the role of a substitute pope of his own Catholic Church or, to have come to an agreement with the Pope

(Parker 92).

Henry’s anxiety towards Protestant belief may have been fuelled by the concern whether, as the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was replaced by the individual’s intuitive experience of faith (King,

English Reformation Literature 131), this would undermine the king’s power and absolute control. This concern was voiced by Gardiner, who was convinced that the interpretation of religious texts of those not trained in Christian orthodoxy, would cause a misreading of the text resulting in a threat to authority.

He therefore emphasized the importance of a restauration of authority to prevent religious diversity

(King, English Reformation Literature 131).

This would help to explain Henry’s inconsistent policy characterized by wanting to have it both ways, or in other words applying Protestant and Catholic doctrine where he saw fit. It could also explain why

King David was chosen to represent the Tudor king, as it could help in the transition from one authority,

Rome, to a new authority, the Tudor king, while reducing the possibility for the realm to question the legitimacy of the king’s claim to absolute control.

According to Christian doctrine, King David was the ancestor of Christ (Matt 1:1), therefore, the biblical king was perceived to be the intermediary between heaven and earth, connecting God with his people

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 59). The new Protestant faith made clear that there was no need for a member of clergy to serve as mediator between God and his subjects, but by presenting himself as the biblical King David, Henry VIII presented himself to be that which binds heaven and earth. In other words, he replaced church authority with his. By using the Old Testament king as guise, he succeeded in legitimising his claim to absolute control.

An example of how Henry VIII used both Catholic and Protestant means where he saw fit is shown in

Henry threatening the Pope that he would turn Lutheran if Rome kept rejecting his demands (Parker 21)

while at the same time banning Lutheran writings. This can be read in the proclamation of May 1530:

“Proclamation against the writings and disciples of Luther, containing precepts for all law officers of the Crown, and others having governance of the people, to make oath, on entering upon their office, to extirpate heresy and assist the Bishop in the same” (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII 2873). Even though

Lutheran literature was forbidden, many, according to Parker, claimed the king took a liking to it, even taking some of those supporting the new ideas under his protection (21). It is possible that he saw how

Protestant doctrine could be beneficial for his dispute with Rome and eventually for his ambitions of absolute control.

Although giving refuge to Protestants while rejecting Lutheran ideas would give the impression that

Henry, giving the tumult of past events, was planning on gradually introducing the new doctrine, preventing a too sudden reform causing a possible revolt, none of this is plausible. When studying

Henry’s policy throughout the reformation, it suggests the king still being a devout Catholic in search of absolute control.

Another argument questioning Henry’s Protestant devotion is shown in his introduction of the Act of

Six Articles and the execution of Thomas Cromwell. The Act of Six Articles re-establishes Roman

Catholic practises as there were: “transubstantiation the sufficiency of communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, the binding force of vows of chastity, the rightfulness of private masses and the necessity of auricular confession” (Parker 92-93) as a reaction to Protestant reform (Leithead).

Although the re-imposing of Catholic means might prove Henry still holding on to Catholic doctrine, there might be something else going on beneath the surface. On the opening of Parliament in May 1539,

Audley, the Lord Chancellor repeated in his speech, that Henry VIII’s wished to control the variety of opinions. This may signal the king’s obsession with absolute control, despite religious conviction.

Following this line of thought, Cromwell’s fall is not that surprising as it is generally believed that not

Henry, but the chief minister was in control of English reform “whispering into the king’s ear a blueprint for all the revolutionary developments of the 1530s.” (Leithead)

6.1. Thomas Cromwell: A Threat to the King’s Authority Thomas Cromwell was chief minister and principal secretary to the king. During his career Cromwell managed to climb himself up the social ladder. After having joined the French army as a young man, he travelled to the low countries where he visited the mercantile cities of Bruges and Antwerp. There he was surrounded by English merchants who taught him the tricks of the trade. When returning to England he worked his way up as a business agent, which introduced him to circles of law. It did not take long for Cromwell to become well-known in London’s mercantile and legal society and was often called upon in law suits. Soon Cromwell’s name circulated in government’s upper classes, which brought him in close contact to Cardinal Wolsey, who relied on Cromwell for several legal matters. Through his legal work and connection with Wolsey, Cromwell joined the house of Commons in 1523. Due to his excellent work, Cromwell was admitted into Cardinal Wolsey’s council. Cromwell dealt with the Cardinal’s legal affairs and gained his confidence, becoming his most trusted adviser (Leithead).

Even though Cromwell feared for his position after Cardinal Wolsey’s fall, he managed to stay put and proved to play an important role in King Henry’s divorce suit and his battle with Rome. He became a driving force in the attack against church liberties, which resulted in the Petition of the Commons against the Ordinaries, convinced Parliament to pass the Act in Restraint of Appeals and was given the task to persuade, together with Audley, Archbishop Warham to agree with the king’s title of Supreme Head

(Leithead).

Cromwell entered council in 1530, taking on more legal and administrative responsibilities for the king.

Henry VIII requesting Cromwell’s help indicates the lawyer’s increasing influence at court. Due to his legal skills Cromwell took in the position of supervisor of the king’s parliamentary and legal matters

(Leithead).

Apart from controlling the king’s legal and governmental affairs, Cromwell also gained the position of

“master of the jewels” in April 1532 (Leithead). One year later, on 12 April 1533, he received the position of Chancellor of the exchequer to eventually receive the title of Henry VIII’s principal secretary and chief minister in April 1534. Cromwell’s governmental rise also led to an increase of power. Being master of the jewels gave Cromwell the authority over the king’s treasury allowing him to control the

court’s economic affairs. As mentioned, Cromwell’s new received authority proved to be of benefit for

Henry VIII in the obtaining of the royal divorce, the appointing of Anne Boleyn as new queen as well as the king receiving the title of Supreme head. However, Cromwell also used his power for his own

Protestant conviction. In 1535, he received the title of “royal vicegerent”, which he used to increase his own power over church. It is also believed that in gaining the Tudor monarch’s trust, Cromwell was able to convince Henry VIII to carry out the changes of reform, the chief minister had in mind (Leithead).

Given the chief minister’s use of his legal skills and increased power to strengthen the Tudor king’s authority, Cromwell’s fall may come as a surprise. Leithead claims, that Cromwell’s fall cannot be ascribed to one particular mistake or decision, which I believe to be true as his fall can be re-directed to a combination of decisions of policy. This could be perceived by the king as a threat to his control, damaging his image as supreme ruler.

As long as the chief minister’s authority was used to strengthen the king’s power, Cromwell remained in the king’s good graces. If the king’s authority was secured, it seemed as if Henry remained in control, even though it is believed Cromwell had everything in hand (Leithead). However, several of Cromwell’s decisions can be perceived as undermining the king’s authority, forming a threat to Henry’s absolutism.

In July 1536, Parliament attempted to shed some clarity on religious doctrine. Together with Cranmer and Foxe, Cromwell made some suggestions leaning towards the Wittenberg papers, which was met with great resistance on conservative side. Henry responded by demanding both parties to come to an agreement before parliament would split for summer. Parliament was able to provide the king with ten articles on religion. Although both protestant and the conservative faction came to an agreement, slight alterations were made which however subtle, supressed Catholic dogma for the benefit of the Protestant cause. Adaptations included changes in wording (Leithead). An example of this can be found in some of the prayers in the Prayer Book. Before the blessing of the elements a prayer is said asking for “bread and wine” to “become onto us”, in the new Prayer Book, this is altered to “that they be onto us” (qtd in

Parker 107). The change in wording implies bread and wine being mere symbols and not a change in its nature (Parker 107).

Although the emendations were subtle, Cromwell managed to take it one step further. When the chief minister sent instructions on how the clergy should apply the decisions made over summer, he ordered, without Convocation’s consent, every church to put on display, the Bible in both Latin and in the vernacular. It was the manner in which the injunctions were instructed that struck a chord; the language used in attacking the saints and custom of imagery was far more radical than could be read in the

Convocation’s agreement. This resulted in a rejection of and a growing hate towards the chief minister.

Cromwell managed to inspire fear which would eventually result in rebellion (Leithead), of which the

Pilgrimage of Grace serves as an example.

The amount of hate directed towards Cromwell was made clear in a statement of Lord Darcy following the rebellions for the suppression of monasteries, which reads:

Cromwell it is thou that art the very original and chief causer of all this rebellion and mischief,

and art likewise causer of the apprehension of us that be noble men and dost daily earnestly

travail to bring us to our end and to strike off our heads, and I trust that or thou die, though thou

wouldest procure all the noblemen’s heads within the realm to be stricken off, yet shall there

one head remain that shall strike off thy head (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII 441).

Although those leading the rebellions directed their hatred towards the king’s advisers, Henry could not help but be concerned that new measures of reform would give rise to acts of rebellion and heresy

(Leithead). One may wonder whether the king’s main concern was how his adviser’s policy would reject his image as ruler or whether the king felt control slipping through his hands.

The arrangement of Henry VIII marrying Anne of Cleves is often defined as the event leading up to

Cromwell’s fall. As the arranged wedding was the first event making Henry doubt his confidence in his chief minister, Cromwell’s opponents found his weak spot, enabling them to overthrow him (Leithead).

The collapse of Cromwell’s policy followed by the introduction of the Act of Six Articles, may suggest

Henry re-establishing conservative orthodoxy. However, one may question whether this does not exemplify the king’s obsession with absolute rule, especially considering, after Cromwell’s execution in 1540, Henry gave instructions to bring three evangelicals as well as three conservatives faithful to the

Pope, to the scaffold (Leithead). This might suggest the king re-confirming his authority as sole ruler, sending a strong signal that the king and only the king should be obeyed.

6.1.1. Thomas Cromwell and Joab: Commanders in Chief Tying this back to the story of David, one may see similarities between the figures of Cromwell and

Joab, the commander of the biblical king’s army (2 Sam 2:13). One cannot doubt Joab’s loyalty to

David, and one assumes that Cromwell needed to show the same loyalty to Henry VIII (King James

Bible 619), however, both figures tended to undermine their sovereign lord’s authority to increase their own power. It is believed that Cromwell was the driving force behind Henry VIII’s reign, which makes one wonder who really controlled the English throne; Cromwell or the Tudor king (Leithead). The same question can be asked when looking at Joab in his relation to David and the former’s motives for killing

Abner and Amasa.

After David was anointed king of Judah, Abner, commander of Saul’s forces, made Saul’s son, Ish- boseth “king over Gilead, and over Ashhurites, and over Jezreel, and over Aphraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel” (2 Sam 2:8-9). A war broke out between the House of Saul and the House of David, during which Asahel, the brother of Joab was slain by Abner. As the House of David grew stronger,

Abner turned his back on Saul’s son Ish-boseth, and decided to go to Hebron to meet with David: “And

Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they make a league with thee, and that thou mayest reign all that thine heart dersireth. And David sent Abner away: and he went in peace” (2 Sam 3:20-21).

When Joab got word of this news, he went to David in search for an explanation. Here, one notices a shift in power. Joab admonishes David as one would a child or, as a king would his subjects: “What hast thou done? […] why is it thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee” (2 Sam 3:24-25). Upon which Joab sends for Abner to return to

Herod, where he will be killed by the hands of Joab (2 Sam 3:26-27).

A similar shift of power can be found when David sends Joab to fight “the children of Ammon and besiege […] Rabbah” (2 Sam 11:1) while the king remained at his palace in Jerusalem. Joab succeeded to conquer Rabbah and “sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have

taken the city of waters. Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city and it be called after my name” (2 Sam 12:26-28). It appears as though Joab not only commanded David’s army, but also the biblical king himself.

As is written in the second book of Samuel, Joab killed Abner to avenge the death of his brother Asahel

(3:28). However, it can be argued that Joab’s murder of Abner is also motivated, by the same reason for his killing of Amasa; both men formed a threat to his position as commander in chief.

Like Abner, Amasa was a powerful commander and was appointed to command Absalom’s6 military forces “instead of Joab” (2 Sam 17:25). After Absalom’s defeat, King David spared Amasa’s life and appointed him, and not Joab, commander of his army during the war against Sheba. When Amasa sent out to confront Sheba, Joab drew his sword and “smote [Amasa] therewith in the fifth rib, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died” (2 Sam 20:4-10).

Just like Joab undermined David’s rule, Cromwell undermined Henry VIII’s authority. This is reflected in his making of small adjustment in religious doctrine (Leithead) as well as his harsh language in the instructions of how the court’s decisions should be applied in local parishes, deviating from what was agreed on by Convocation. All of this was done in favour of the chief minister’s Protestant cause.

Unlike Henry VIII, David did not take matters into his own hands and it was not until his son Solomon ascended the throne that Joab was punished. The new king ordered for the execution of Joab to “take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from [Solomon], and the house of [his] father” (1 Kgs 2:30).

6.2. King David and Deception Apart from the similarities between David and Henry VIII in terms of interests and talents (both having the talent of composing text and music, for instance) and their questionable legitimacy to the throne, the two monarchs share another aspect, aligning them even further than one might suspect.

Like Henry VIII using imagery of biblical kings to disguise his true motives, David was no stranger to similar forms of deception. According to the English Bible “disguise and evasion [were] second nature”

6 Absalom, son of David, declared himself ruler of Herod (2 Sam 15:10). This led to a war between Absalom and his father (2 Sam 18:1-32).

to David and he is described to be a “deceptive opportunist” (501-502). Although David is chosen by

God to rule Israel, one may question whether David’s portrayal as loyal subject to the House of Saul, unwilling to lift a finger against God’s anointed, was not to secure his authority and win over the hearts of Israel. Presenting Saul as a mad king, haunted by outbursts of envy, and his son Jonathan to be faithful to David, together with David mourning the death of both Saul and Jonathan, can be used to hide the embarrassing- question whether David was responsible for Saul’s fall (King James Bible 499-500).

The history of King David shows many similarities to the history of Jacob, the founding father of Israel

(King James Bible 500). David being a deceptive opportunist is not that surprising, considering he is often associated with Jacob whose characteristics agree with the definition of the “trickster hero” (King

James Bible 8, 500). Both David and Jacob are shepherds (Gen 29:15, 1 Sam 16:1) and the youngest of their siblings (Gen 25:26, 1 Sam 16:11). They both preferred taking the younger sister as their wife instead of the older (Gen 29:18, 1 Sam 18:20), and were both deceived by their father-in-law upon their wedding day (Gen 29:15, 1 Sam 18:19). Like Jacob, David had to flee from the wrath of his opponent

(Gen 27:43, 1 Sam 19:2). When ascending the throne, both monarchs suffered from misfortunes, such as the rape of David and Jacob’s daughters Tamar and Dinah, bringing about the first cracks in their dynastic line.

Like Jacob, David succeeds in gaining strength through the weakness of his opponent. An example of this can be found in David’s victory over Goliath and Jacob stealing his brother Esau’s birthright. When

Esau begged Jacob to feed him as he was feeling faint coming from the field, Jacob said:

Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold I am at the point to die: and what profit

shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him:

and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles […]

(Gen 25:31-34).

Not only did Jacob take advantage of his brother’s weakness for his own benefit, he also deceives his father Isaac, by taking advantage of his father’s poor sight in deceiving him to believe Jacob being Esau, to receive his father’s blessing instead of his brother.

When Rebekah, mother of Esau and Jacob, heard Isaac call upon Esau to go “to the field, and take [him] some venison” to make his father a “savoury meal” (Gen 27:3-4), so that Isaac may bless Esau, Rebekah ordered Jacob to do the same, in order for him to receive his father’s blessing instead of his older brother

(Gen 27:5-10). In order for Isaac to believe Jacob being his brother, for Esau was “a hairy man” and

Jacob “ a smooth man” (Gen 27:11), Rebekah “put skins of the kids of the goats upon [Jacob’s] hands, and upon the smooth of his neck” (Gen 27:15), that when Isaac would put his hands upon his son, he would be convinced of Esau standing in front of him : “And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother’s Esau’s hands: so he blessed him” (Gen 27:23).

This trickery and taking advantage of one’s weakness, is also characteristic for David. In his victory over Goliath, David strikes the Philistine with one of the five stones he took “out of the brook” and had put into his bag (1 Sam 17:40). When the pebble hit Goliath, “the stone sunk into his forehead” (1 Sam

17:49) and the Philistine “fell upon his face to the earth” (1 Sam 17:49). This gave David the opportunity to slay Goliath by taking advantage of the Philistine’s feeble position.

On one occasion the reader may be tempted to doubt David’s good nature, when his brother Eliab’s

“anger [is] kindled”, when David arrives on the battle scene, and his brother exclaims: “I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart”. This makes one doubt whether, apart from being God’s elect, the biblical king’s ambition did not help pave the way towards the royal sceptre.

Apart from the similarities between David and Jacob in terms of behaviour and their course of life, the two kings are also aligned through heritage. The House of David originates in an incestuous act between

Judah, son of Jacob, and Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law (King James Bible 86). Reference to David’s mixed ancestry is made in the first Book of Samuel, when the biblical king has to flee from Saul and

“escapes to the cave of Adullam” (1 Sam 22:1), which used to serve as a Judaean stronghold. The opening line of 1 Samuel verse 22 echoes the opening line of verse 38 in the Book of Genesis7, which tells the story of Judah and Tamar (King James Bible 546). The name of Tamar also recurs in the second

7 David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave of Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father’s house heard it, they went down thither to him (1 Sam 22:1)/ And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned into a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah (Gen 38:1).

Book of Samuel, as it is the name of David’s daughter who falls victim to rape by her brother Amnon.

This episode announces the beginning of rivalry and deceit within the House of David. Paradoxically, the incestuous act of the first Tamar gave rise to the House of David, while the second Tamar announced its fall (King James Bible 584).

The reason why both David and Jacob are not commonly known as trickster kings is because of the way their actions are presented by their narrators. David not willing to lay a hand against God’s anointed, him mourning the death of both Jonathan and Saul (2 Sam 1:11-12), the killing of the man that was responsible for their murder (2 Sam 1:15) as well as the execution of the men who murdered Saul’s son

Ish-bosheth (2 Sam 4:12)8, and Jacob’s gift9 to Esau, makes one tend to forget about both kings’ behaviour prior to their ascendency to the throne.

Although it appears as if David allows the reader to know him on a personal level, his intentions remain a mystery (King James Bible 503). Throughout the narrative, several episodes occur, which makes one wonder what motivated David: did he act out of loyalty or did he want to strengthen and secure his power by upholding the image of being a loyal subject and righteous king.

At the cave of En-gedi, David had the opportunity to slay Saul who found himself in a vulnerable position. David and his men find Saul at this cave, where Saul retrieved himself “to cover his feet”10 (1

Sam 24:3). Having Saul in such vulnerable position, when he needs to relieve himself, allows David to

“do to [Saul] as it shall seem good unto [him]” (1 Sam 24:4). In the cave of En-gedi, David decides to cut off a piece of Saul’s robe, but immediately comes to regret his decision (1 Sam 24:4-5) and “says unto his men, the Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him” (1 Sam 24:6).

What makes one wonder whether David truly regretted his act against Saul, is his declaration in front of his men, that no one is allowed to touch God’s anointed (1 Sam 24:6). It can be questioned that the

8 Even though Ish-bosheth formed a threat to King David’s reign 9 And he [Esau] lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and children; and said, who are those with thee? And [Jacob] said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant (Gen 33:4-5). This if followed by a summary of Jacob’s wives and children (Gen 33:6-7). 10 To cover one’s feet in this context refers to “relieve oneself” (King James Bible 549)

reason for David to mention this, is to avoid his men standing up to him, God’s elect, by setting the example that if even David would not rise against God’s anointed, no one is allowed to. This line of thought is given additional strength in the following paragraph of verse 24. After Saul has left the cave,

David immediately goes after him crying “that the Lord had delivered [Saul] today into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee: and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24:10).

David mentioning to Saul, that he did not touch him because “he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24:10) either exemplifies David’s loyalty or his manipulative nature. By confronting Saul that he, David, would not lay a hand upon him, while this cannot be said of Saul, places Saul in a bad light. This can be used by David to strengthen his position as rightful king to the throne.

David’s loyalty to Saul is also questioned when he proposes an alliance with the Philistines, known to be an enemy of the House of Saul (1 Sam 14:46). David “dwelt in the country of the Philistines [for a] full year and four months” (1 Sam 27:7). The Philistines allowed for David to build his own ford and to organise raids (King James Bible 555). Fortunately for David, the commander of the Philistine forces refused David’s help in their battle against Israel (1 Sam 29:4) which eventually resulted in the deaths of both Saul and Jonathan (1 Sam 31:6).

By gaining the Philistines’ trust, as Achish, King of Gath, declared that he has “found no fault in

[David]” (1 Sam 29:3) and not having raised a hand against Saul, at least in the literal sense, David won the support of Israel as well as its enemies, strengthening his position and entitlement to the throne. To quote the English Bible, David succeeded in “hav[ing] it both ways “(555), which reminds one of Henry

VIII’s policy characterised by both Catholic and Protestant features.

The commitment of adultery with Bathsheba is another example that might reveal the biblical king’s true colours. Although Protestants explain this incident as an example of the king’s human side (Kilgore

422), it at the same time reveals a moment when the king fails to uphold his mask of deception. For the first time, David gives in to his desires, testing the limits of his royal authority. To erase the traces of evidence and the possibility of this moment of weakness being revealed, he gives the order to Joab to

place Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah “in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire […] from him, that he may be smitten, and die” (2 Sam 11:14). So, even though David appeared to be a model of royal conduct and loyalty, based on a closer reading of the text one may wonder whether this was not a mask to hide his true intentions.

6.3. Idolatry Protestants ridiculed the adoration of saints’ images and relics and prohibited practices of idolatry

(Leithead). The reformers succeeded to alter and re-arrange the ten commandments to fit Protestant belief, and now put great emphasis on the forbidding of the production and adoration of images

(Leithead). This took on a more radical form during King Edward VI’s reign, during which church walls were completely stripped of decoration and replaced by biblical inscriptions. Saint relics, statues, crucifixes and portraits of the Virgin Mary and child were also not safe from Edwardian iconoclasts. On the king’s request they even went as far as prohibiting images of England’s patron Saint George (King,

English Reformation Literature 146-148).11 In comparison with future events, acts of iconoclasm during

Henry VIII’s reign were rather mild. Protestants tended to be more concerned with altering Roman

Catholic iconography than with demolishing it. New forms of art and literature were developed to replace the old and to avoid for the reformers to leave behind too big a void (King, Tudor Royal

Iconography 17). However, in pressuring Henry in January 1538 to approve of further reformation change, Cromwell tried to persuade the Tudor king in agreeing to a “campaign against idolatry” during which images and statues would be destroyed (Leithead).

Initially, royal iconography was meant to fill the gap left by Protestant iconoclasts. What is remarkable is that it received the same adoration as former images of saints or statutes of the virgin Mary and child previously had invoked (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 17). It can be questioned whether the rejecting of idolatry was not a rejection of the constitution towards which the adoration was aimed. Especially because the Tudor king took on the image of King David, a biblical figure already admired by the

11 The young Tudor king also demanded for the demolition of the cloister at St. Paul’s Cathedral together with other churches in London. The stones of these demolished houses of worship, were used for the construction of Somerset House (King, English Reformation Literature, 147). The building of Somerset House was initially instigated by Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, but was passed to the Tudor Crown after Seymour’s execution (Somerset House). What is remarkable is that the stones of those buildings that were destroyed for putting Catholic power on display, were now used to construct a building that would display the power of the Crown.

parishioner for his royal conduct. By casting himself into the role of David, he hoped to receive the same adoration as the biblical king seemed to evoke.

Considering images as can be found in the King’s Psalter, or the Coverdale Bible title page, in which

Henry is presented as a new David, makes one wonder whether this cannot be defined as a diluted version of idolatry. Especially when looking at the motives behind these portrayals.

Although reformers at court rejected the use of imagery, they also saw the potential of the use of the arts as a striving power to secure royal authority (Sharpe 26). Artists, writers, poets, etc. sought inspiration in England’s cultural heritage, re-shaped it and made it fit the current circumstances. Reformers used and exploited that which is familiar as an instrument to legitimise Tudor rule, agreeing with Sharpe’s claim that to legitimise control one should appeal to traditions and a nation’s past (Sharpe 12).

Knowing that images of saints or biblical figures evoked feelings of adoration within the parishioner, using those same images to portray the Tudor king, it appeared that those in charge of the country wanted to arouse the same feelings. Addressing his subjects, emotions could help Henry in winning their support, which he needed, to go through with his policy of absolute control.

That the application of images could be used to accuse Protestants of idolatry, was something that concerned reformers at court. As a matter of fact, it did not take long for Catholics to attack protestants on their use of imagery. Criticism was voiced by Thomas More, who reacted to the Protestant’s accusation of Catholics worshipping idols fabricated by their own imagination, with the counteraccusation that the “heretics” had built their own fictitious world in which they had come to believe, or at least claimed to believe in (Greenblatt 60). Protestants serving Henry VIII, such as

Cromwell, defended their use of images by declaring that illustrations were only allowed if applied according to the instructions of Gregory the Great stating that images are to serve as words for the layman who cannot read, to prevent them from being excluded from the lives and histories of those portrayed12 (King, English Reformation Literature 53). Images that were the product of “mennes

12 “images serve for none other purpose but as to be books of unlearned men that cannot know letters, whereby they might be otherwise admonished of the lives and conversation of them that the said images do represent” (qtd. in King, English Reformation Literature 53)

phantasies” (qtd. in King, English Reformation Literature 145) however, needed to be shattered (King,

English Reformation Literature 145).

Protestant images served as an aid for the layman’s understanding of Scripture, for, as Gheraert Leeu so beautifully described, “images are the laymen’s book” (qtd. in King, English Reformation Literature

39). It was meant, instead of arousing feelings of worship, to symbolize the “inner experience of faith”

(King, English Reformation Literature 154).

However, during Edward VI’s reign, protestants did perceive this as a form of idolatry. Henry VIII’s son regarded the woodcuts, as could be found in Foxe, of the Madonna and saints as a practice of idolatry. Edward VI took it as his task to re-establish the discipline of pure worship (King, Tudor Royal

Iconography 98-99).

Another possible reason as to why Henry VIII chose David brings me back to the belief of Henry still being a faithful Catholic, desiring absolute control. Using the image of David might reflect his religious devotion, as the king was known for taking a liking to traditional church customs. The use of David in representing Crown rule dates back to medieval church tradition and could also be found in several representations of Henry VIII’s father Henry VII (Sharpe 63, King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11) At the same time, it may also reflect his desire for total control; David being the medium through which

God and his people are connected, emphasized the role of Henry as being the mediator between his subjects and God so that the church parishioner would turn to the king for salvation instead of the Pope.

David also proved to be an icon for ideal kingship; being able to compose himself not lifting a finger against Saul. This also defines the Tudor king’s conduct, particularly when looking at his desire of absolute control. Henry never explicitly took on a Protestant nor Catholic stance to avoid revolt on either side which would jeopardize his role as head of state.

To summarize, as long as images were used to accompany scripture, allowing the illiterate layman access to Christian liturgy, it was permitted. But what can be made of the image of David, used to present

Henry VIII, as is displayed in the King’s Psalter? Was this not meant to evoke some sort of worship, for

Seymour claimed that only images of the king were allowed to be admired and glorified (King, English

Reformation Literature 185). To avoid being, yet again, accused of idolatry, Seymour read the king’s image as a mirror reflecting the truth as is unveiled in the Bible (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 18).

As already mentioned, allowing some form of worship, makes one wonder whether Henry VIII’s rejection of idolatry was not in fact a rejection of the church institution towards which the adoration was directed. As Bible illustrations appealed to the illiterate layman (King, English Reformation Literature

152), images could be perceived as a means to bring royal subjects under Henry’s control. Illustrations of the Tudor king presenting himself as a new King David, could engrave into the minds of the illiterate parishioners the connection between the two monarchs, by transferring the features of King David’s rule onto the Tudor king, granting him the same respect David gained from his Israelite subjects.

If the main reason of Protestant’s usage of images was to prevent the illiterate subject being denied access to Scripture and the true faith, one may question why the parishioner was denied access to the

Bible translated in his mother tongue, especially given the fact that reformers fervently opposed to imagery, stimulating iconoclastic attacks. The answer might, yet again, be found in Henry’s obsession with being the realm’s sole ruler.

7. The English Bible

Henry being reluctant towards the publication of an English Bible, is an understatement. The only way the lay reader had some sort of access to Scripture was through Jacobus de Voragine’s The Golden

Legend (King, “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan Iconography” 54), translated by Caxton, bringing together several saints’ lives. Caxton circumvented the law preventing the publication of an English

Bible, by publishing a set of tales derived from Christ’s life (King, English Reformation Literature 38).

The reason why Henry was so reluctant towards the publication of the Bible in the vernacular, can be found in arguments opposing to Protestant measures, as voiced by Catholics such as Thomas More.

More was convinced that by omitting church authority for the interpretation of Scripture, the church parishioner would read the Bible according to his interpretation. This would give rise to a development of faith according to one’s own understanding (Greenblatt 62). Cardinal Campeggio13, also warned

Henry that if his subjects were given “church goods” (Parker 43) they would become a threat to the king.

Henry VIII responded that it was church authority that was the real danger (Parker 43). Although this may give the impression that Henry was armed against these arguments, they did leave their traces in the Tudor king’s mind, fuelling a fear of losing royal control.

In early Modern England, power was exercised through the production and exploitation of texts (Sharpe

23). Henry and his court soon came to realise how print could be used for the distribution of text and images of propaganda, containing instructions on religious conduct (King, “The Godly Woman in

Elizabethan Iconogaphy”47). To secure his authority, Henry relied on “the royal word” (Sharpe 252).

This would become characteristic for the reigns of his successors Edward VI and Elizabeth I, who, together with their father, proliferated themselves as bearers of the word to their people (something

Mary Tudor failed to do during her reign) (Sharpe 271).

As mentioned earlier, changes of reform included the replacing of ecclesiastical with secular power, or in other words with that of the Crown. What made Henry suppress the translation of the Bible in the

13 Campeggio was send by Pope Clement VII to supervise, alongside Wolsey, Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s divorce suit (Scarisbrick). He was given clear instructions to take whatever measures were in his power to delay the trial (Parker 40)

vernacular was the absence of royal authority (King 46), for fear it would jeopardize his power of total control. The exclusion of church authority in the process of interpretation of Scripture, should be replaced by royal authority to prevent the parishioner from developing religious truths of his own.

Being trained a theologian (King, English Reformation Literature 42) combined with Henry’s claim for absolute control, explains his desire to define religious doctrine (Eppley 8). The reason as to why the

Crown should have the authority to define religious content was, that Henry VIII wanted to assure the parishioner to be educated according to the “true faith” (Eppley 10). The claim of Henry wanting to teach the parishioner the “true faith” is synonymous with the true faith as defined by Henry.

The early Modern English tendency of citizens, wanting to feel connected to their monarch, and the

Crown’s understanding for the need to be fashioned as king of the people, might have added to the realisation that, to avoid his subjects from turning their back on the Tudor king, Henry needed to listen to his subjects’ demands. Henry’s religious doctrine can be connected to his portrayal as the biblical

King David, for Eppley claims, that his defining of the true faith is associated with his wish to act according to the Old Testament king he set himself out to be (10).

In an attempt to hold back the publication of the Bible in the English vernacular, Henry gave instructions for the public burning of vernacular Bible translations agreeing with Lutheran teachings. However, the

Tudor king was aware that a repression of a Bible translation would not hold forever, as the cry for a

Bible in the vernacular grew bigger each day. This resulted in “The Bishops Petition for an English

Bible” (19 December 1534):

The Petition of the synod of the province of Canterbury concerning the declaring suspected

books and the translation of the Bible into English.

On the 19th day of December, in the year of the Lord one thousand five hundred and thirty four,

the Bishops, Abbots and Priors of the upper house of convocation, otherwise the sacred synod

of the province of Canterbury in the chapter house of the Cathedral Church of S. Paul, London,

in the presence of the most reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Thomas, by divine

permission archbishop of Canterbury […] agreed that the said most reverend father should make

instance to the most illustrious prince and Christ and our lord, the lord Henry, by the grace of

God, King of England and France, defender of the faith, and lord of Ireland, and (under God)

supreme head of the English Church, that his royal majesty should think fit for the increase of

the faith of his subjects to decree and command that all and singular his subjects, in whose

keeping or possession are any books of suspected doctrine, more especially in the vulgar tongue,

whether printed here or beyond the sea, be admonished and compelled to show and actually

declare those books of suspected doctrine within three months from the date of the

admonishment being published in that district, before persons to be named by the king’s

majesty, under a fixed penalty to be controlled and limited by the king’s majesty. And that

furthermore the king’s majesty should think fit to decree that the holy scripture shall be

translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain upright and learned men to be named by the

said most illustrious king and be meted out and delivered to the people for their instruction.

(Records of the English Bible 176-177). (Appendix G)

For fear of public revolt and the growing demand that the king was obliged to provide the parishioner access to Scripture, Henry agreed on the condition that the English layman would renounce all false opinions and rebellious ideas (Sharpe 94). This eventually led to the acceptance of Miles Coverdale’s

Bible translation.

7.1. Miles Coverdale: The Quest for an English Bible As a young man, Miles Coverdale was intrigued by what they called “new learning” or the Reformation as it came to be known (Peritz 103). As the Reformation took form, Coverdale’s love for Scripture increased, to which he gave expression in a letter to Thomas Cromwell, who became one of his close friends (Peritz 103). In 1527, Coverdale wrote a letter to the future chief minister, asking for books that would help him in his studies, which Cromwell supplied (Leithead) as he supported the young reformer in his attempt to translate Scripture (Peritz 103).

The translation of Scripture was never claimed to be Coverdale’s own work. His translation of the New

Testament was a revised version of Tyndale’s writings, to which he made alterations that involved rhythmic adjustments and changes in fluency of expression (Devries 154).

What caught Cromwell’s eye was Coverdale’s teachings, advocating for total submission, proclaiming temporal, prevailing over spiritual authority and the exaltation of kings as gods (Reeves 55). These arguments in favour of Henry’s claim to absolute power, might have played a role in the eventual publication of the Coverdale Bible in 1535.

Coverdale dedicated his first completed edition to the king (Devries 154). In order to persuade the king to accept the translated edition, he addressed the king’s title of Defender of the Faith, from which Henry took great pride, and attacked their mutual enemy Pope Clement VII (Peritz 103). According to

Coverdale, Scripture provided evidence that the Pope had confiscated the power Henry VIII was entitled to. The truth would remain hidden as long as Scripture was not known. Therefore, Rome resisted all

Bible translation and eradicated all published Bibles, together with their translators (Peritz 104).

Coverdale also argued that if laymen had access to Scripture this would not, as Campeggio claimed, form a threat to the Crown, but would discourage subjects to stand up to their liege (Reeves 55), and allow Henry to bring back his subjects to obedience. In order to do so, Coverdale instructed the king to examine and contemplate God’s law.

Within this reasoning, being allowed access to Scripture, will allow Henry’s subjects to come to the realisation that to obey God, is not to obey the clergy, feigning to deliver the word of God, but to obey their king, father and mother like it was proclaimed by God. For Scripture declares kings having received their authority directly from God, which on earth dominates all other authority (Reeves 53-54).

In his dedication, Coverdale assures the king of his total obedience to the Crown:

Considerynge now (most gracious prynce) the inestimable treasure, frute & prosperite

euerlastynge, that God geueth with his worde, and trustynge in his infynite goodnes that he

wolde brynge my symple and rude laboure herin to good effecte, therfor as the holy goost moued

other men to do the cost herof, so was I boldened in God, to laboure in the same. Agayne,

consyderynge youre Imperiall maiestye not onely to be my naturall soueraigne liege Lorde &

chefe heade of the church of Englonde, but also the true defender and maynteyner of Gods

lawes, I thought it my dutye, and to belonge vnto my allegiaunce, whan I had translated this

Bible, not onely to dedicate this translacyon vnto youre highnesse, but wholy to commytte it

vnto the same: to the intent that yf any thynge therin be translated amysse (for in many thynges

we fayle, euen whan we thynke to be sure) it may stonde in youre graces handes, to correcte it,

to amende it, to improue it, yee and cleane to reiecte it, yf youre godly wysdome shall thynke it

necessary (Records of the English Bible 200-201)

Coverdale continues that his loyal subjects are as bound unto King Henry as the “Iewes (by ten thousande partes) [were] so moch bounde vnto Kynge Dauid, for subduynge of greate Goliath, and all theyr enemyes as we are to your grace, for delyuerynge vs out of oure olde Babylonycall captiuyte.”

(Pollard 202).

Attacking Henry’s enemy, addressing his right to authority, comparing him to the biblical King David and recognising his absolute power, must have flattered the king, given Henry’s totalitarian desires, for he allowed Coverdale to distribute his Bible translation in 1535 (Peritz 104). Although Coverdale was granted permission to produce his Bible in 1535, it was without the king’s licence, which he did not receive until the altered version published in 1539 (Devries 154).

Despite Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s efforts, England was still in search of a good Bible translation. The current editions either lacked in understanding or were overloaded with explanatory notes. Cromwell therefore appealed to Coverdale, for re-editing the then circulating Matthew Bible. This revised edition would be known as The Great Bible, which derived its name from its volume size. Cromwell took this edition to be printed in France, as England was unable to provide for an elegant edition (Devries 156).

When the publication was nearly finished, the general of the French Inquisition threatened to destroy the publication (Leithead). Cromwell managed to negotiate with Francis I and was able to transport the press, the pages and labourers to London, so that The Great Bible was ready for circulation in 1539

(Devries 156).

Although Henry’s approval of the publication of a vernacular Bible might give the impression that the king allowed his subjects to interpret Scripture for themselves, and in that sense empowering them, none of this seems to be the case. For the king’s approval, together with his representation of David, serves

as another guise to secure absolute control. This is reflected in the measures the Tudor king introduced upon the publication of an English Bible. To prevent Scripture from being interpreted to each layman’s own understanding, jeopardizing his royal highness’ absolute control, Henry admitted a prohibition for the articulation of one’s opinions regarding religious matters, without the king’s consent, in the Act of

Six Articles (King, English Reformation Literature 85).

By taking a keen interest in theology along with abolishing church authority, Henry VIII fashioned himself to be the main theologian in the realm (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 41). Despite the king being driven by a totalitarian desire, Henry took his vocation as Head of church seriously and was actively involved in the outlining of church reform (Leithead). An example of Henry’s commitment, as well as how print was used in exercising authority is A Necessary Doctrine and Erudiion for Any

Christian Man Set Forth by the King’s Majest of England, more commonly known as The King’s Book

(1543). The King’s Book voices Henry VIII’s belief, that as being Supreme Head he was entitled to define religious doctrine. The Tudor king prescribed faith, restored and redefined the sacraments and clarified the commandments as well as the Lord’s Prayer. Henry also cited an excerpt from Ecclesiastes stating that power is there, where the word of the king is present. Henry did not only remind his subjects to honour their sovereign, but also to take notice of their liege’s words (Sharp 94, 107)

Another argument in support of the publication of the Bible in the vernacular, being a guise to hide the replacement of church control with that of the king, is the “King’s Proclamation for the English Bible to be set up in Churches” (May 6, 1541):

A proclamacion, ordeyned by the Kynges maiestie, with the aduice of his honourable counsayle

for the Byble of the largest and greatest volume, to be had in euery churche. Deuised the vi day

of May the xxxiii. yeare of the kynges moste gracious reygne. Where, by Iniunctions heretofore

set forth by the auctorite of the kynges royall maiesty, Supreme head of the churche of this his

realme of Englande. It was ordeyned and commaunded amongest other thynges, that in al and

synguler parysche churches, there shuld be prouyded by certen day nowe expired, at the costs

of the curates and paryshioners, Bybles conteynynge the olde and newe Testament, in the

Englyshe tounge, to be fyxed and set vp openlye in euery of the sayd parysche churches

(Records of the English Bible 261-262)

Every parish church should put an English Bible on display, giving the impression of access to Scripture at all times. However, the church parishioner would rather than read the Bible individually, hear English

Scripture through the mouths of the clergy following the Crown’s guidelines (King, “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan Iconography” 46). By this Henry continued to be in control at all times.

It is important to keep in mind that the illustrations, books, pamphlets, etc. published with Henry VIII’s consent, were what the king believed to be the absolute truth (Sharpe 82), despite the fact it helped the

Crown in gaining total control.

It can be argued that Henry VIII’s tendency towards absolute rule, is also visually depicted on the

Coverdale Bible’s title-page, designed by Hans Holbein the Younger, a German artist living in sixteenth- century England. Hans Holbein was commissioned by Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII, to design a woodcut engraving that would serve as the Coverdale Bible title-page (Ranking and Latré).

It can be argued that the woodcut illustration provides a visual outline of political and religious shifts in

Tudor England.

Many bible folios circulating sixteenth-century Europe, had incorporated Luther’s “law and gospel motif”14 in their title-page designs (Ranking and Latré). Together with Martin Luther, Cranach the Elder designed The Law and the Gospel, envisaging Luther’s notion of law and gospel (Noble). In the upper right corner, the figures of Adam and Eve can be discerned, below them, two naked male figures can be found, each flanking opposite sides of the panel. The illustrated scene on the left-hand side represents the law, while the scene illustrated on the right-hand side represents gospel. The male figure on the bottom-left is denounced to hell by two devilish creatures, whilst Moses is holding up the Ten

14 Luther stressed the importance of separating between law and gospel, therefore distinguishing between obeying God in the secular world from obeying Christ in the spiritual world (Couenhoven 181). God had defined the law and appointed the state to enforce the law in the secular regiment. Luther believed that the law paved the way towards the gospel, which “comforts and forgives” (Couenhoven 183). However, according to Luther, subjects fail to separate between the two forms of God’s word. The church proclaimed that by doing the works, and living according to the law, one could secure a place in heaven. Luther, however, emphasised that only God had the power of salvation, the only thing one could do as to believe in God’s grace. That even though god condemns “human sin”, god also has the power to forgiven and show mercy to “sinful believers” (Noble).

Commandments. On the opposite, gospel, side, John the Baptist guides the male figure to both Christ nailed on the cross and Christ risen from the dead, standing on top of a tomb. The male figure on the right is delivered before Christ awaiting his judgment. Here, in the eyes of God, one’s list of good works becomes futile. Cranach’s The Law and the Gospel conveys Luther’s message that without Gospel, law alone will not pave the way to salvation (Noble).

Cranach’s depiction of Luther’s “law and gospel motif” inspired many Bible folios circulating sixteenth- century Europe. Derivations of the design could be found decorating the title page of Jacques Lefevre d’ Etaples’s French Bible (1530) as well as the Matthew Bible (1538) and Jacob van Liesvelt’s Dutch

Bible edition of 1538. The title-page illustration of the Coverdale Bible formed no exception: incorporating the figures of Adam and Eve but excluding the figure of Christ on the cross as well as

Christ’s resurrection, therefore deviating from Luther’s visualisation of law and gospel (Ranking and

Latré).

Prior to Hans Holbein’s design for the Coverdale Bible’s title-page, the German artist had already implemented Cranach’s The Law and the Gospel in the Allegory of the Old and New Testaments (1532).

A similar depiction can be found in this title-page illustration of the Coverdale Bible. On the left, the law is represented by Moses holding on to the Ten Commandments, while the Gospel on the right, takes in the form of Christ, instructing his apostles, and the disciples proclaiming God’s message on the day of Pentecost (Rankin and Latré).

It can be argued, that Henry’s policy of absolutism seeps through when looking at the way Holbein positioned the Tudor king in his title-page illustration (Appendix H). As described by Rankin and Latré, the figure of Henry VIII cumulates at the top of a “literal triangle” turned upside down. Forming the central point, bringing together the figures of Christ and Moses in Henry Tudor. A horizontal line connects the two figures of Christ and Moses, who are finding themselves in opposite directions. From both Christ and Moses, two lines can be drawn resulting in a triangle-like shape, connecting the two figures to the Tudor king (Ranking and Latré). As a result, Henry casts himself in the divine position of deliverer of the word to his people, placing him in line of God delivering the word to Moses, followed by Jesus to the apostles and finally Henry, delivering the word to his subjects (Rankin and Latré).

Rankin and Latré also point to the Coverdale title’s description, that “the holy Scripture of the Olde and

New Testament [is] faithfully and truly translated”. The Bible being “faithfully and truly translated”, combined with Holbein’s depiction of Henry delivering the word to the prelates, implies that Henry VIII has within his power the instrument to govern Tudor England “correctly” (Rankin and Latré) as he becomes a direct link between God and his people.

This adds to the idea that if Henry VIII is the deliverer of the Bible to his people, the parishioner should turn to his sovereign liege for the understanding of the divine message. This is, yet again, an example of the Tudor king’s anxiety of losing authority, his conviction of being entitled to define true faith, and his desire to be in total control, at all times.

7.2. William Tyndale: Defender of the English Crown? The acceptance of the Coverdale Bible translation is remarkable for it was largely based on William

Tyndale’s translation, which was part of the reason why the Tudor king rejected the idea of an English

Bible. The reason is, that aside from the Bible missing royal authority it would also be infused with

Tyndale’s “inflammatory notes” (King, English Reformation Literature 46). This yet again proves

Henry VIII to be a Protestant as he saw fit, as he rejected Tyndale’s ideas of Reform.

William Tyndale was a linguist and theologian educated at Oxford. He is associated with the English translation of the New Testament, which formed the basis for the Coverdale Bible and following English

Bible translations. Tyndale’s proposal in 1523 to Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, to translate the

Bible in the vernacular was ill received. The reformist therefore decided to travel to the continent, where he would work on his translation. This resulted in the publication of the English New Testament in 1526 of which several copies were shipped, illegally, to England (Eppley 19).

Under the instruction of Tunstall, copies of Tyndale’s New Testament were burned as it was believed to be a document of heresy, filled with untruths. Tyndale remained on the continent where he worked on the translation of the Pentateuch and revised his translation of the New Testament. Nine years after the publication of his translation of the New Testament, Tyndale was arrested in Antwerp and burned at the stake in September 1536, on the charges of heresy (Eppley 19).

At Anne Boleyn’s request, Henry VIII read Tyndale’s Obedyence of a Christian Man, to which his initial response was, that this was to be a guide all kings should take note of (Greenblatt 89). This is not surprising, as Tyndale attacked the Roman Catholic Church and demanded total obedience to the Crown.

Tyndale defined monarchy as the saving grace against the Catholic Church, which he saw as the root of all evil (Greenblatt 88).

Fashioning himself a new David, it is likely that Henry VIII took notice of how Tyndale used the biblical king to support his claim of total obedience to the Crown. Having given an elaborate account of how

David refused to slay Saul, “For who (said [David]) shall lay hands on the Lord’s anointed and be not guilty? (Tyndale 39) even though “If any man might have avenged himself upon his superior, that might

David most righteously have don upon King Saul, which so wrongfully persecuted David” (Tyndale

38), Tyndale comes to the conclusion that as it is God who decides who will rule the realm, those opposing the king oppose to God.

For god hath made the king in every realm judge over all, and over him is there no judge. He

that judgeth the king judgeth God and he that layeth hands on the king layeth hand on God, and

he that resisteth the king resisteth God and damneth God’s law and ordinance. If the subjects

sin they must be brought before the king’s judgment. If the king sin he must be reserved unto

the judgement, wrath and vengeance of God. And as it is to resist the king so is it to resist his

officer which is set or sent to execute the king’s commandment […] Hereby seest thou that the

king is in this world without law and may at his lust do right or wrong and shall give accompts

only to God (Tyndale 39-40).

A king should only have to answer to the Deity, who will be judge of the king’s actions (Greenblatt 89) and “[…] no person neither any degree may be exempt from this ordinance of God” (Tyndale 40). Every subject, including the clergy, should obey their temporal rulers, viz. kings and emperors. “The powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth power resisteth God: yea though he be Pope, bishop, monk or friar. They that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation” (Tyndale 41). Tyndale pleas to openly reject the authority of the church, and for total obedience to the king (Greenblatt 90), agreeing with Henry’s desire for absolute submission.

Tyndale also believes that if a king should rise against God’s will, one is not allowed to rise against the king (Eppley 21), just like David not standing up to Saul.

Why did David not slay Saul, seeing he was so wicked, not in persecuting David only, but in

disobeying God’s commandments and in that he had slain eighty-five of God’s priests

wrongfully? Verily for it was not lawful. For if he had done it, he must have sinned against God

(Tyndale 39).

However, this does not imply that one should obey every king’s order, especially when the king should act against the will of God and therefore carry out a hateful policy: “[…] if they command to do evil we must then disobey and say we are otherwise commanded of God: but not to rise against them” (qtd. in

Eppley 21).

Tyndale assured the supporters of the Protestant faith, that in their endurance of evil reign, God’s spirit is amongst them and that the Lord will punish his royal representative on judgment day (Eppley 21).

Tyndale refers to the apostles Peter and Paul, who answered to their sovereign’s authority, without claiming any power to themselves, proclaiming to both fear and obey their rulers and to act according to their will, if it agrees with God’s law (Eppley 21).

Tyndale also reminds the parishioner, that like the clergy, kings have been elevated to the status of gods.

Those ecclesiastical “gods” have betrayed and deceived the world, and therefore one should be cautious for royal gods not to deceive their realm in the name of our holy father (Greenblatt 91-92) If the king’s commands are contrary to the will of God, one should not only disobey, but it is one’s responsibility to inform the king of his wrongful policy (Eppley 22). In other words, the king’s subject should cast himself into the role of Nathan, confronting David with his sin.

According to Tyndale, every Christian has the ability within his own conscience to comprehend the word of God as it is unveiled in the Bible (Greenblatt 99). This implies the parishioner being able to interpret Scripture on his own, without the need for an intermediator. Subjects being able to read and interpret Scripture is what the king feared, as it could give rise to disobedience to the Crown. The fear that each individual would interpret Scripture according to their own understanding, can be derived from

a draft for a proclamation on the reading of the Bible, written after Henry VIII instructed for an English

Bible to be set up in every parish church in the realm. The parishioner is advised to turn to the “lerned menne as be or shall be auctorised to preache” when difficulties occur in the understanding of Scripture.

And if at any tyme by reading any doubt shall come to any of youe touching the sense and

meaning of any part thereof, that thenne not giving to moche to your owne mynde, fantazies and

opinions not having thereof any open reasonyng in your open Tauernes or Alehowses, ye shall

haue Recourse to suche lerned menne as be or shalbe auctorised to preache and declare the

same, soo that avoyding all contentions and dsiputacions in suche Alehowses and other places

vnmete for suche conferences and submitting your opinions to the Iudgements of suche lerned

menne as shalbe appoynted in this behaulf […] (Records of the English Bible 266).

By translating the Bible in the parishioner’s mother tongue, Tyndale wanted to give the layman the instruments by which he could examine whether the actions of those in power were in accordance to

God’s law, and what they proclaimed to be true was in fact the truth (Greenblatt 93).

The Obedyence was published during the aftermath of the German Peasants’ Revolt15 (Eppley 19) and is defined to be “a classic of civil disobedience” (Richardson and Dick xi), something Henry VIII soon came to realise. The Obedyence, together with The Practice of Prelates in which Tyndale defies King

Henry’s divorce, won the king’s everlasting hate. England declared The Obedyence to be an act of heresy as it was believed to support Lutheran ideas, which can be derived from an excerpt of a letter of Henry

VIII, responding to a letter of Martin Luther (Records of the English Bible 177-188):

So came it than to passe, that Luther at laste, parcyuyng wyse men to espye hym, lerned men to

leaue hym, good men to abhorry hym, and his frantyke fauourers ro fall to wracke, the nobles

and honest people in Almaygne, beynge taught by the profe of his vngratyous practyse, moche

more hurt and myschefe to folowe therof, than euer they loked after, deuysed a letter to vs

written, to abuse them and all other natyons, in suche wyse, as ye by the contentes therof herafter

15 The Peasants’ war in Germany was stimulated by changes imposed by the Reformation. During the revolt, peasants demanded more liberty from their oppressors; aristocrats and landowners (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

shal well percyeu. In whiche he fayneth hymselfe to be enformed that we be tourned to the fauour of his secte. And with many flateryng words, he laboreth to haue vs content that he myght be bolde to write to vs in the mater, and cause of the gospell. And thervpon without answere had from vs, nat onely publysshed the same letter and put it in print, of purpose that his adherents shulde be bolder, vnder the shadowe of our fauour, but also fell in deuyce with one or two leude persons, borne in this our realme, for the translating of the Newe testament in to Englysshe, as well with many corruptions of that holy text, as certayne prefaces, and other pestylent gloses in the margentes, for the aduancement and setting for the of his abhomynable heresyes, entendynge to abuse the gode myndes and deuotion, that you oure derely beloued people beare, towarde the holy scripture, & to enfect you with the deedly corruption and contagious odour of his pestylent errourss.

8. Davidic Kingship and Tudor Dynasty

As this dissertation has already claimed, Henry VIII exploited the image of King David to legitimise his ascendency to the throne and the king’s entitlement to hold both sceptre and crook. Like their father, both Edward and Elizabeth dealt with crises of legitimacy and turned to biblical figures such as David and Solomon to strengthen their claim to the English throne.

Both Elizabeth and Edward understood the importance of self-representation and how text and print could be of help in this process (Sharpe 74). After all, according to Greenblatt, self-fashioning is achieved through language (9) and a means to constitute royal authority (Sharpe 23). Edward and his sister Elizabeth used the royal word to strengthen their power. It is believed that Edward VI exploited his writings in establishing his identity and to support his claim to the English throne (Sharpe 194-195)

(something Mary Tudor failed to acknowledge during her reign).

8.1. Edward VI: A New Solomon Edward being only nine years of age upon ascending the throne placed government in a vulnerable position that could easily be overthrown (King, English Reformation Literature 161). Like many centuries before, royal iconographers turned, once more, to the Bible in search for guidance. Like his father, Edward VI, or more specifically his court, found inspiration in the Tree of Jesse. They saw in

Solomon, whom also appointed king in his youth, a suitable framework to support the young Tudor king’s reign (King, English Reformation Literature 161).

Being a child still allowed those opposing to Protestant rule to question Edward’s legitimacy and ability to rule. They argued that further religious adjustments should be delayed until the king’s coming of age

(King, Tudor Royal Iconography 92). However, presenting Edward as a second Solomon allowed Tudor court to legitimise the king’s authority and ability to rule, as the king took after the young Solomon, whom was also appointed by his father, regardless of his son’s minority (King, Tudor Royal

Iconography 92).

Edward was presented as surpassing his father’s reign, just like Solomon exceeded David. Although

Protestants presented Henry VIII as Fidei Defensor of the Protestant faith, not all Protestants thought

highly of the self-proclaimed David (Slavin xiii), as some accused Henry for having held back to further religious reform (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 90). Presenting Edward VI as a new Solomon, allowed Edwardian iconographers to condemn David’s flaws and by this criticise Henry Tudor’s reign.

It seems as if Edward VI’s court, like Henry VIII, understood the mechanisms behind Renaissance self- fashioning; now Pope Clement VII was not perceived as the “threatening other” that needed to be expelled (Greenblatt 9) but Henry VIII himself in order for Edward to establish an identity of his own.

Hugh Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, criticised the former Tudor king or “polygamous David” (King,

English Reformation Literature 177) of not being a worthy example to his Solomonic son. Unlike Henry

VIII, Edward would rule “a new Israel” (Sharpe 225) and would succeed in what his father could not do: the establishment of a Protestant temple. Based on this criticism, it is not that surprising that references to David are not to be found in Edwardian panegyrics (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 91).

Although Edwardian iconography denounced the figure of David, one cannot deny that once more the

Tree of Jesse provided a suitable framework to the young Tudor’s reign. It can be argued that the rejection of King David was necessary to take away the focus of young Edward’s age, as well as allowing those who were really in charge, to develop their rule out of sight from the public eye. This is similar to

Henry’s exploitation of David to hide his tendency towards absolute rule. In that sense young Solomon’s reign had more in common with David’s rule than Edward’s court would have liked to admit to.

8.2. Elizabeth I: Female Monarch, Masculine Rule Like her brother, Elizabeth I struggled in legitimizing her ability to rule. Elizabeth being a woman, was an issue that needed to be overcome for the queen to be accepted as “independent monarch” (King, “The

Godly Woman in Elizabethan Iconography” 57). It seemed as if the queen needed to be detached from her femininity for the realm to perceive her as an autonomous authority. This is not surprising considering that, prior to her sister Mary, queens never ruled on their own. They were an associate, a partner to the ruling king. They were, just like the virgin Mary, perceived as mother, a nurse to the nation, an intercessor between God and his subjects (King, “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan

Iconography” 51,57), or in this context, a medium between king and the realm. Therefore, there was a

need for reform in traditional royal iconography to take away the question of a queen being able to govern in her own right. Once again, Tudor iconographers saw potential in the Tree of Jesse.

Finding inspiration in Old Testament types to represent queens as consorts was not uncommon.

Traditional archetypes such as Esther, the five wise virgins, the Woman of Proverbs and the Woman clothed with the Sun, were commonly used to represent medieval queens (King, “The Godly Woman in

Elizabethan Iconography” 42). To present the authority of Queen Elizabeth however, iconographers turned to the biblical figures of Deborah and Judith. Both strong female characters endowed with characteristics traditionally attributed to kings, such as Moses, David and Solomon (King, “The Godly

Woman in Elizabethan Iconography” 58). Deborah was both prophet and judge and saved Israel from the terror of the Canaanite people (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Judith killed Holofernes, who was ordered by the king of Medes, to bring Israel under the king’s command. The saving of Israel, and the defeat of Holofernes cannot help to remind one of David’s victory over Goliath and his saving of Israel from defeat.

In order for Queen Elizabeth I to gain the authority of a king, not only figures of Deborah and Judith were used, but royal iconographers turned to male biblical archetypes such as David and Solomon to strengthen her reign. The Tudor Queen was praised for exceeding both David and Solomon in succeeding to lead a church that instead of dividing, united the realm (Sharpe 433). Mary Sidney

Herbert, Countess of Pembroke and sister of Sir Philip Sidney (Encyclopaedia Britannica), wanted to offer the queen a psalter, the Countess of Pembroke translated herself based on her brother’s translation of Psalm 1-42. In her dedicatory note, Pembroke compares the Tudor queen to King David, as both monarchs had to deal with resistance before their ascendency to the throne and were forced to face their enemies to defend their kingdom (Kilgore 417-418); David being forced to confront his son Absalom and England being attacked by the Spanish Armada.

For ev’n thy rule is painted in his reign:

Both clear in right, both nigh by wrong oppressed;

And each at length (man crossing God in vain)

Possessed of place, and each in peace possessed.

Proud Philistines did interrupt his rest,

The foes of heav’n no less have been thy foes:

He with great conquest, thou with greater blest;

Thou sure to win, and he secure to lose. (qtd. in Kilgore 417-418)

In a woodcut border of John Stow’s The Chronicles of England (1580), published as Annales of England in 1592 (Encyclopaedia Britannica) the Tudor lineage is represented as a “rose tree” (Warren 152). This reminds one of the Tree of Jesse, which in the woodcut border springs from Edward VI and blossoms in the figure of Elizabeth I (Warren 152). According to King, Elizabeth is therefore presented as descending from the House of David (Tudor Royal Iconography 200). This detaches the Tudor queen from the image of the Virgin Mary, the traditional icon for queen consorts.

Referring to male emblems of ideal kingship to represent Elizabeth I’s rule, is not that remarkable considering the queen adopted masculine characteristics herself to strengthen her position as queen. She was known to refer to herself as prince or king when emphasising her royal authority (Sharpe 410). Not only in speech but in attire as well, could one discern elements of masculinity. It is believed that Queen

Elizabeth I introduced a doublet, a male type of jacket, in female dress as well as jerkins (Sharpe 415).

It can be argued that the queen felt the need to stress her masculine side to win the trust of the realm as suitable monarch to rule England.

Not only during her reign did Elizabeth I felt the need to emphasise her masculine abilities, even as a child did the young princess align herself with masculine world of learning. During Edward VI’s reign,

Elizabeth sent her brother a portrait of herself. In this portrait, the princess is depicted carrying a booklet, symbolising her gender and religious devotion, while the folio placed on the desk, indicates her interest in education, which was usually associated with men (Sharpe 363-365). It is believed that the future queen had a say in how she should be presented in the portrait, implying that she wanted to be perceived as “studious, pious and contemplative” and willing to play an active role in this “masculine world”

(Sharpe 366).

Elizabeth being a female monarch can be regarded a disadvantage, as the Tudor queen had to prove herself a worthy ruler when taking in a position formerly occupied by men. However, the struggle

Elizabeth I faced in finding a suitable representational model, as England prior to Mary I had never had an autonomous ruling queen before, enabled her to surpass her brother and father, by creating an image of herself that was not solely dependent on biblical archetypes. It could be argued that by exploiting both female and male archetypes, Elizabeth succeeded in emphasising both her strength as “male” ruler as well as her role of mother, taking care of her nation. As a result, Elizabeth I succeeded in creating an emblem of her own. Elizabeth became a, or the symbol of the British nation. This is reflected in the collecting of miniatures of the Tudor queen, which people preserved in jewellery boxes or were used to adorn the necklaces of the queen’s subjects. This would eventually develop in the production of everyday objects as plates carrying the royal image (Sharpe 388-389). In that sense, Elizabeth I surpassed her father, who already understood the importance of being the nation’s centre of admiration, by becoming the public’s object of adoration. Queen Elizabeth I, succeeded in balancing her royal authority with the public’s desire for familiarity, enabling her to gain the realm’s trust and win over the hearts of her subjects (Sharpe 76).

8.3. Mary Tudor: The Importance of the Royal Word An example of the importance of the royal word, can be found in Mary Tudor’s reign, which was and still is, considered a dark page in Tudor history. Contrary to what is generally believed, the ascendency of Mary Tudor was not ill-received. Mary proved to be a popular queen, supported and loved by her subjects (Sharpe 301,305). Mary Tudor’s reign was not by marked by a harsh policy towards

Protestantism from the beginning of her reign. The queen initially believed and hoped that with time her subjects would come to find their way back to the true Catholic faith (Sharp 300). But as the Tudor queen grew older and more frustrated with the pace of the Counter- Reformation, Mary I started to grow impatient. The Tudor queen decided that her gentle approach was insufficient and that harsher measures were required. Prohibitions against acts of heresy were proclaimed, but as this did not provide a wishful outcome, Mary Tudor began her reign of terror. For order to be restored “the rotten and hurtful members” (qtd. in Sharpe 301) needed to be eradicated (Sharpe 301).

Although there is no doubt that Mary’s bloody reign led to the loss of her subjects’ loyalty, there might be other elements that may have added to her loss of popularity. Unlike her father, brother and sister,

Mary Tudor failed to grasp the significance of the royal word. The Tudor queen never addressed her people, as she never took the stage on important state events (Sharpe 252) and neither did the queen publish any royal texts or pamphlets in defence of her reign or to advertise her policy (Sharpe 252).

Mary therefore failed to present herself as bearer of the word to her subjects (Sharpe 271). This resulted in the queen gradually losing touch with her subjects, as oratory performances and the production of texts, proved to be an important aspect to a monarch’s policy of winning the loyalty of his subjects.

Another important aspect is that in developing her royal image, Queen Mary I only emphasised those aspects (her marriage and her being a devout Catholic for instance) the Tudor queen found essential to her reign, without regard to what the public believed to be important. Therefore, Mary Tudor failed in becoming a queen of her people (Sharpe 315). The notion of becoming a king or queen of the people aligned with the desire of early modern English subjects, to feel connected with their monarch (Sharpe

XXVII), an aspect Mary Tudor’s father and sister did recognise as becoming more and more important to secure their reign.

Conclusion

Throughout this dissertation, I have argued how both David and Protestantism served as a veil to cover

Henry Tudor’s desire for absolute control. I have explored how King Henry VIII found a representational model in the biblical King David to present his rule as he was forced to reinvent his authority in an age marked by political and religious reform (King, Tudor Royal Iconography 11). The image of David was meant to unite a realm divided by the Tudor king’s policy of religious reform, marking the beginning of Protestant rule. I have argued that fashioning himself a new David might have started as a continuation of medieval tradition, but gradually Henry VIII saw how the biblical king could be exploited in support of his reign of absolutism.

This dissertation has argued that the figure of David did not primarily serve as an instrument in support of Protestant rule, as this can be questioned as one may doubt King Henry’s Protestant conviction; holding on to Catholic dogma and tradition, the introducing of the Act of Six Articles, re-imposing

Catholic means (Leithead) and obstructing the publication of an English Bible translation. A possible reason why Henry held back Protestant reform was out of fear that it would undermine the king’s authority, as the Protestant faith put great trust in the parishioner to interpret Scripture on his own, providing the layman with an instrument that could question the authority of the Crown (Greenblatt 93).

However, while Protestant rule offered a possibility to defy the authority of Rome, which, according to

Henry Tudor, jeopardised the authority of the Crown, Henry soon realised that allowing for the publication of an English bible translation would provide the king with an instrument to define and control faith, bringing back the realm under his control (King, English Reformation Literature 85).

Therefore, I believe that both David and Protestantism served as a guise for the Tudor king’s desire of total control.

The many similarities between King Henry VIII and David, fuelled the Tudor king’s conviction of being the embodiment of a new David. The parallels between the Tudor king and David went beyond their shared interests and talents as King Henry’s use of the figure of David to hide his true intentions aligns him even further with the biblical king than even Henry himself would have suspected. For David was

no stranger to the art of deception (King James Bible 501-502) as David’s actions make one wonder about the biblical king’s true motives.

However, considering the biblical king’s history it might be considered to have been a risk for Henry to have fashioned himself a new David. David being a mere shepherd which problematised his legitimacy to the throne, his commitment of adultery with Batsheba and the killing of her husband Uriah, makes one wonder whether it was beneficial for a monarch to represent himself as a murderous, adulterous king. However, I have argued that what can be perceived to be David’s flaws became Henry’s strength.

David being born a shepherd legitimised Henry’s priestly role and proved that it is God who chooses his elect (Prescott 18) which confirmed Henry’s entitlement to the English Crown.

Not only did Henry see potential in the figure of David to support his policy of absolute reign, those surrounding the king also came to the realisation that presenting and addressing the Tudor king as a new

David could be of benefit to their own cause; Protestants representing Henry as David in support of the

Protestant reformation and Coverdale comparing the realm’s loyalty to the king to that of the subjects of David in order to obtain the king’s blessing for the publication of the Coverdale Bible (Pollard 202), are but two of many examples.

Even though for centuries biblical archetypes have served monarchies with models of ideal kingship, setting the example for kings to follow, it can be argued that Henry Tudor succeeded in innovating a medieval tradition by making the biblical king David fit his reign, instead of the other way around. This is something his successors came to understand, as Henry’s use of biblical archetypes to secure his reign left its traces in both Edward VI and Elizabeth I’s reign. Perhaps one might say that even in present day politics one can discern the remnants of Renaissance rulers’ dependence on figures of popular culture to secure their rule and win public support.

The question of David formed the focal point of this dissertation and, as I have mentioned earlier, did prove difficult to answer. Whereas previous literature focused on King David and Henry VIII’s shared interests and talents (King, Tudor Royal Iconography, Tudor-Craig) and, how the biblical king’s flaws

(being born a shepherd and his great sin) formed a threat to the Tudor king’s reign (Prescott), this

dissertation has tried to provide an insight in how the similarities between the biblical king and Henry

VIII, together with David’s flaws, were exploited for the Tudor king’s policy of absolute reign. Finally, with this dissertation I have tried to show that there is more to the Tudor king’s history than his -more than- healthy appetite for women and that his reign offers an insight in the manipulative nature of monarchies to secure their reign.

Bibliography

"Henry VIII: April 1537, 16-20." Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 12

Part 1, January-May 1537. Ed. James Gairdner. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1890. 433-

447. British History Online. Web. 1 April 2018. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers- hen8/vol12/no1/pp433-447.

"Henry VIII: May 1530, 16-31." Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4,

1524-1530. Ed. J S Brewer. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1875. 2868-2883. British History

Online. Web. 30 March 2018. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol4/pp2868-2883.

“Somerset House History.” Somerset House, https://www.somersethouse.org.uk/history. Accessed 14

May 2018.

Couenhoven, Jesse. “Law and Gospel, or the Law of the Gospel? Karl Barth’s Political Theology

Compared with Luther and Calvin.” Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2002, pp. 181-205.

Devries, William. “The English Bible.” The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1889, pp.

152-161.

Eppley, Daniel. Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning God’s Will in Tudor England. Ashgate

Publishing Limited, 2007.

Faherty, Robert, Stendahl, Krister, et al. Biblical Literature. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Intertestamental-literature#ref597886. Accessed 2

May 2018.

Greenblatt, Stephen Jay. Renaissance Self-fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicallo (Ill.):

University of Chicago press, 2005.

Guido Latré and Mark Rankin. “The Materiality and Iconography of the Coverdale Bible (1535) Title

Page in Context, in Stephen Pricket (ed.), The Edinburgh Companion to the Bible and the Arts,

Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press, 2014, pp. 272-291.

Kilgore, Robert. “The Politics of King David in Early Modern English Verse.” Studies in Philology,

Vol. 1, No. 3, 2014, pp. 411-441.

King, John N. “The Godly Woman in Elizabethan Iconography.” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 38, No.

1, 1985, pp. 41-84.

King, John N. English Reformation Literature: The Tudor Origins of the Protestant Tradition. Princeton

University Press, 1986.

King, John N. Tudor Royal Iconography. Princeton University Press, 1989.

Leitheid, Howard. Cromwell, Thomas, earl of Essex. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/6769. Accessed 1 Apr.2018.

Morley, Henry Parker. The exposition and Declaration of the Psalme, Deus Ultionum Dominus, Made by Syr Henry Parker Knight, Lord Morley, Dedicated to the Kynges Hignes. [Londini: In aebidus

Thomae Bertheleti typis impress], 1534.

Müller, Jan Werner. What is Populism?. .

Nelson, Clifford, et al. Protestantism. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism. Accessed 6 May 2018.

Noble,Bonnie. “Cranach, Law and Gospel (Law and Grace).” Khanacadamy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/renaissance-and-reformation/protestant- reformation/a/cranach-law-and-gospel-law-and-grace. Accessed 7 May 2018.

Parker, Terry M. The English Reformation to 1558. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1966.

Perits, Ismar. “The Coverdale Bible 1535.” Journal of the National Association of Biblical Instructors,

Vol. 3, No.2, 1935, pp. 102-109.

Pollard, Alfred W. Records of the English Bible: the Documents Relating to the Translation and

Publication of the Bible in English, 1525-1611. Folkestone: Dawsons, 1974.

Prescott, Anne. “The 2011 Josephine Waters Bennett Lecture: From the Sheephook to the Scepter: The

Ambiguities of David’s Rise to the Throne.” Renaissance Quarterly, Vol.64, No.1, 2012, pp. 1-30.

Reeves, Ryan. English Evangelicals and Tudor Obedience, c. 1527-1570. Brill, 2014.

Richardson, Anne, and John A. R Dick. William Tyndale and the Law. Kirksville (Mo.): Sixteenth

Century journal publ., 1994.

Scarisbrick, J. Warham, William. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/28741. Accesses 1 Apr. 2018.

Sharpe, Kevin. Selling the Tudor Monarchy. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2009.

The Editors of the encyclopaedia Britannica. “Deborah”. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Deborah-biblical-figure. Accessed 2 May 2008.

The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “John Stow.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Stow. Accessed 2 May 2018.

The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Mary Herbert Countess of Pembroke.” Encyclopeadia

Britannica, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Herbert-Countess-of-

Pembroke.Accessed 2 May 2018.

The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Peasants War.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/event/Peasants-War. Accessed 20 April 2018.

The English Bible King James Version, The Old Testament. Edited by Herbert Marks, New York, W.W.

Norton and Company Inc, 2012.

Tudor-Craig, Pamela. “Henry VIII and King David.” Early Tudor England, edited by Daniel Williams,

The Boydell Press, 1989, pp. 183-205.

Tyndale, William. The Obedience of a Christian Man, Edited with an introduction and notes by David

Daniell, London, Penguin Books, 2000.

Tyndale, William. The Obedyence of a Christen Man: and How Christen Rulers Ought to Gouerne:

Wherin Also (yf Thou Marke Dylygentlye) Thou Shalte Finde Eyes to Perceyue the Craftye

Conueighaunce of All Iugglers, Reade (when Soeuer Thou Readeste Good Christen Reader) with a Pure

Affection and Uprighte Iudgemente to Godes Moste Holy Booke. [London: Printed by William Hill,

1548.

Warren, Nancy. Women of God and Arms: Female Spirituality and Political Conflict, 1380-1600.

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

Appendices

Appendix A16

16 Thomson, James. King Henry The Eight And His Jester, Will Somers. Early 19th Century, line and stipple engraving,National Portrait Gallery, London.

Appendix B17

17 Psalter of Henry VIII, 1540, BM Royal 2A XVI, fol.79. Henry VIII as King David in Penitence, with overtones of Agony in the Garden. Early Tudor England, edited by Daniel Williams, The Boydell Press, 1989, plate 8.

Appendix C18

18 Psalter of Henry VIII, 1540, BM Royal 2A XVI, fol.30. Henry VIII as King David killing Goliath. Early Tudor England, edited by Daniel Williams, The Boydell Press, 1989, plate 6.

Appendix D 19

19 Title page of Coverdale’s Bible, 1535. Early Tudor England, edited by Daniel Williams, The Boydell Press, 1989, plate 3.

20 Title page of Thomas Cranmer’s Bible,1539. Early Tudor England, edited by Daniel Williams, The Boydell Press, 1989, plate 4.

Appendix E 21

21 Tyndale, William. The Obedyence of a Christen Man: and How Christen Rulers Ought to Gouerne: Wherin Also (yf Thou Marke Dylygentlye) Thou Shalte Finde Eyes to Perceyue the Craftye Conueighaunce of All Iugglers, Reade (when Soeuer Thou Readeste Good Christen Reader) with a Pure Affection and Uprighte Iudgemente to Godes Moste Holy Booke. [London: Printed by William Hill, 1548.

Appendix F22 Psalm 6 To the chief musician on Neginoth upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. Have mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak: O Lord, heal me; For my bones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O Lord, how long? Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. Let all mine enemies be ashamed and sore vexed: let them return and be ashamed suddenly.

Psalm 31 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me. For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name’s sake lead me, and guide me. Pull me out of the net that thy have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength. Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord god of truth. I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the Lord. I will be glad and rejoice in thy mercy: for thou hast considered my trouble; thou hast known my soul in adversities; And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room. Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am in trouble: mine eye is consumed with grief, yea, my soul and my belly. For my life is spent with grie, and my years with sighing: my

22 The English Bible King James Version, The Old Testament. Edited by Herbert Marks, New York, W.W. Norton and Company Inc, 2012.

strength faileth because of mine iniquity, and my bones are consumed. I was a reproach among all mine enemies, but especially among my neighbours, and a fear to mine acquaintance: they that did see me without fled from me. I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind: I am like a broken vessel. For I have heard the slander of many: fear was on every side: while they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life. But I trusted thee, O Lord, I said, Thou art my God. My times are in thy hand: deliver me from the hand of mine enemies, and from them that persecute me. Make thy face shine upon thy servant: sae me for thy mercies’ sake. Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave. Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous.

Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men! Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues. Blessed be the Lord: for he hath shewed me his marvellous kindness in a strong city. For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes: nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto thee. O love the Lord, all ye his saints: for the Lord preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer. Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord.

Psalm 37 A Psalm of David Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do goo; so shalt thou dwell in the land and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light,

and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and I shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked. For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the Lord upholdeth the righteous. The Lord knoweth the days of upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever. They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied. Bu the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into the smoke shall they consume away. The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth. For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off. The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in his way. Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand. I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed. Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dell therein for ever. The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.

The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him. The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged. Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not; yea, I sought him, but he could not be found. Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace. But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off. But the salvation of the righteous is of the Lord: he is their strength in time of trouble. And the Lord shall help them, and deliver them, he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.

Psalm 38 A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance. O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart. Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee. My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me. My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my my kinsmen stand afar off. The also seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my heart speak mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth.

Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs. For in thee, O Lord, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. For I said, Hear me, lest otherwise they should rejoice over me: when my foot slippeth, they magnify themselves again. For I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me. For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin. But mine enemies are lively, and they are strong: and they that hate me wrongfully are multiplied. They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is. Forsake me not, O Lord, O my God, be not far from me. Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation

Psalm 41 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness.

I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee. Mine enemies speak evil of me, When shall he die, and his name perish? And if he come to see me, he speaketh vanity: his heart gathereth iniquity to itself; when he goeth abroad, he telleth it. All that hate me whisper together against me: against me do they devise my hurt. An evil disease, say they, cleaveth fast unto him: and now that he lieth he shall rise up no more. Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. But thou, O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them. By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me fore thy face for ever.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting, Amen, and Amen.

Psalm 69 To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, a Psalm of David. Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul.

I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty, then I restored that which I took not away.

O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid From thee. Let not make that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts ,be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O lord, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the spit shut her mouth upon me.

Hear me, O Lord; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies. And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily. Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies. Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishon- our: mine adversaries are all before thee. Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.

Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with righteousness.

But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high. I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Th humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God. For the Lord heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners. Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing that moveth therein. For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession. The seed also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love his name shall dwell therein.

Appendix G23

23 Pollard, Alfred W. Records of the English Bible: the Documents Relating to the Translation and Publication of the Bible in English, 1525-1611. Folkestone: Dawsons, 1974.

Appendix H24

24 Hans Holbein, Coverdale Bible title Page (1535)