University of Nevada, Reno John Bale and the National Identity and Church of Tudor England A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Mark Farnsworth Dr. Eric Rasmussen/Dissertation Advisor May, 2014 © by Mark David Farnsworth 2014 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by MARK FARNSWORTH entitled John Bale and the National Identity and Church of Tudor England be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Eric Rasmussen, Ph. D., Advisor James Mardock, Ph. D., Committee Member Dennis Cronan, Ph. D., Committee Member Kevin Stevens, Ph. D., Committee Member Linda Curcio, Ph. D., Graduate School Representative David Zeh, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School May, 2014 i Abstract Although some of John Bale’s works seemed disconnected from contemporary events of his time (including his Biblical plays, bibliographic histories, and exegetical works), this dissertation contends that he took a highly active role in seeking to guide and influence England’s national and political identity. Bale saw himself as a divinely called messenger to the monarch, to fellow preachers and writers, and to all Britons. King Johan , Bale’s most famous play, demonstrated themes common in Bale’s work, including the need for Biblical religion, the importance of British political and religious independence, and the leading role of the monarch in advancing these religious and political ideals. Bale depicted the ruler as having the ability to build on England’s heritage of historical goodness and bring about its righteous potential. While loyal English clergy and citizens could help to build the Protestant land Bale envisioned, the Catholic Church and its adherents represented the greatest threat to this goal. Bale presented Catholics as treasonous heretics who had undercut England’s sovereignty and perverted its proper religion for centuries. The Reformation and Henry VIII’s break with Rome made it possible to escape this influence, but Queen Mary’s reign—with its return to Catholic religion and reverence for the pope—showed how uncertain England’s future could be. To combat these influences, Bale’s works supported a national Protestant church, based in scriptural truth and headed by the monarch. Under Henry VIII and Edward VI, Bale sometimes saw his desired governmental and ecclesiastical unity realized, but its most lasting manifestation came during Elizabeth’s reign. Bale died early in this period, but his influence continued as Archbishop Matthew Parker and Bishop John Jewel—who each had strong ties to Bale during his life—cooperated with Elizabeth ii in making Bale’s vision a reality. Bale’s true importance was thus more politically aligned and more lasting than is often acknowledged. iii Acknowledgements I want to thank my Ph.D. committee for their incredible help and support. This dissertation could never have occurred if Eric Rasmussen had not ignited my passion for Renaissance and Early Modern literature as an undergraduate and continued to stoke that flame through providing amazing instruction and collaborative opportunities throughout my M.A. and Ph.D. programs. His extensive and insightful notes on drafts of this dissertation have improved nearly every page. James Mardock introduced me to John Bale and encouraged me to write about him, as well as providing in-depth advice during the drafting process. The guidance and feedback provided by Dennis Cronan, Kevin Stevens, and Linda Curcio helped take my dissertation plans from a vague proposal to a well-defined vision, one that could not have come to fruition without them. I wish to express my sincere gratitude for these individuals and all they have done for me. iv Table of Contents Chapter One 1 Chapter Two 57 Chapter Three 139 Chapter Four 225 Conclusion 295 Works Cited 299 v List of Figures Figure One 224 1 Chapter One: Understanding John Bale: The Centrality of King Johan It is a fortunate accident of history that Bale’s King Johan became his most studied play. Given that the play lay forgotten for centuries, the ability to study it at all only came about in 1838 when John Payne Collier discovered the manuscript and produced an edition (Adams, John Bale’s King Johan 1). Even following its rediscovery, some prominent aspects of the text might seem likely to have doomed it to obscurity. The play’s protagonist is an historical English monarch, not an everyman figure, but Bale used many morality play conventions. He populates the drama with allegorical characters and uses it as a vehicle for his homiletics of reform. Despite its historical subject matter, the play does not emphasize psychologically complex and individualized characters such as those celebrated in later Elizabethan drama. When placed into the teleological narrative of English theater that held sway in the twentieth century, the morality aspects would categorize King Johan as an antiquated, medieval text. Irving Ribner portrays the play as demonstrably less advanced than later Shakespearean and Marlovian dramas: “The political morality plays [specifically King Johan and Respublica ] represent a stage of evolution through which the history play had to pass” ( English History Play 40). Given this view, it would not have surprised many if Bale’s only extant play not printed during his lifetime had elicited no more fanfare than his previously known plays. 1 1 Bale’s bibliographic works, chiefly Illustrium Moioris Britanniae Scriptorum Summarium (Summarium ) and Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Britannise Catalogus (Catalogus ), record his own literary output as well as providing invaluable information on earlier and contemporary British authors. They indicate he wrote 24 plays, and Peter Happé lists these, including the five which survive: King Johan , God’s Promises , Johan Baptystes Preachynge , The Temptation of Our Lord , and Three Laws (Bale, Complete Plays I 8). With the exception of King Johan , all these plays were printed in 1547 or 1548. Chapter two will discuss how Bale’s bibliographic works covered texts from other authors. 2 Two innovative features of Bale’s play piqued the interest of twentieth-century critics despite King Johan ’s late printing date and old-fashioned aspects. Much of the initial excitement had to do with the play’s pioneering date for an English history play. Charles R. Forker calls King Johan the first modern English language history play and Bale a pioneer of the genre (Forker 1). Ribner agrees that King Johan is “the first actual history play” (“Morality Roots” 43; see also English History Play 39). Douglas C. Wixson describes Bale’s innovation as creating “perhaps the first dramatic form to bridge the gap between Tudor polemic and the popular stage” (119).2 Some writers also use this early date and the play’s subject matter to claim Bale’s play influenced The Troublesome Reign of King John and Shakespeare’s treatment of the monarch. 3 John Elson asserts that Bale’s drama was a source for Troublesome Reign , noting several parallel passages in the plays (191–3). Ribner goes further, arguing that Bale’s play helped shape both Troublesome Reign and Shakespeare’s King John (“Morality Roots” fn. 37). Both these claims regarding Bale’s pioneering status—in relation to history plays in general and to King John plays specifically—examine Bale’s work in the context of later developments. While I will argue in this dissertation that Bale took part in cultural, religious, and political movements that shaped the future of England, King Johan itself likely had little direct influence on subsequent dramas. Barry B. Adams explains how the play’s textual history made it “unlikely on the face of it that a playwright from the 2 King Johan ’s primacy as an English History play has become readily accepted. Other writers who make statements on that topic include Coleman (35); Levin, Propaganda (87); Hunt (99); Kastan (269); and Womack (119). 3 Charles Forker’s preface, using research done by Brian Vickers, attributed Troublesome Reign to George Peele. 3 1580’s or 1590’s would be familiar with a manuscript play written at least fifty years earlier” ( John Bale’s King Johan 55). Indeed, the play probably went unperformed between 1539 (shortly before Bale’s first exile for religious reasons) and a likely performance before Queen Elizabeth in 1561 (Adams, John Bale’s King Johan 55; McCusker 28). Based on these dates, Adams agrees with Honor Cecilia McCusker (90) and Jesse W. Harris (93–4) in doubting that Bale’s play directly affected either Troublesome Reign or King John . Forker’s edition of Troublesome Reign states that the play’s author probably did not know Bale’s work (49–50). Even James H. Morey’s article that describes similarities between the death scenes in King Johan and Shakespeare’s King John admits that “[n]o one … has suggested that Shakespeare depended on or even knew John Bale’s King Johan ” (Morey 327). 4 Peter Happé points out that Bale’s work has striking similarities to later Protestant interludes, including Lusty Juventus , Life and Repentance of Mary Magdalene , New Custom , and Enough is as Good as a Feast , but he concedes the correspondence could come through indirect means ( John Bale 144–7). Bale’s authorship of the first English history play deserves recognition, and the possibility of later generic influence persists, but those facts should not occlude ultimately more valuable approaches to studying the play. King Johan is actually best understood in the context of its own time and Bale’s career. Recent scholarly work has rightly tended to place Johan in its historical context. The reason the play has attracted critics more than other dramas such as Three Laws or 4 Morey also stops short of making a definitive Bale/Shakespeare connection.