DOCSLIB.ORG

The Arrest and Trial of Archbishop William Laud

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Arrest and Trial of Archbishop William Laud THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM LAUD By NICHOLAS ROBERT CHARLES FORWARD A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham For the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Modern History School of Historical Studies College of Arts and law University of Birmingham March 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Archbishop William Laud was arrested on 18 December 1640, and specific treason charges were brought forward early in 1641. However he did not stand trial until 1644. This study aims to assess the charges; consider the reasons for the significant delay between the arrest and trial; review the law of treason pertaining at the time and how this was applied to Laud; analyse the condemnatory and often vindictive views of Laud within the public sphere as reflected in the pamphlets and newsbooks of the period; and assess in detail the trial itself. Along with Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, Laud was a principle counsellor to the king and a major hate figure for parliament who considered the two men responsible for leading the king astray during the period of the personal rule. Strafford’s trial, however, has been comprehensively studied, whereas the trial of Laud has not received the attention from historians that might have been expected. This study intends to demonstrate that Laud received a thorough trial which reflected parliament’s resolve that it could administer justice in accordance with the procedures of the time, despite the on-going conflict with the king. DEDICATION To Steph for her constant encouragement, to my daughters Jacqui and Suzanne, and to my granddaughter Kara and my grandson Harrison. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Richard Cust for his sage advice and assistance during the course of my studies. The need for encouragement and guidance cannot be underestimated. I would also like to thank Stephen Roberts at the History of Parliament, London, for kindly giving me access to transcripts of the diaries and journals of Walter Yonge, Simonds D’Ewes and Laurence Whitaker. Also my thanks to the website Early English Books Online which has enabled access to a plethora of contemporary documents, thereby assisting for many the scholarship of, in particular, the public sphere. CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The Arrest and Charges 17 Chapter 2. The Pamphlet Campaign against Laud 52 Chapter 3. Bringing Laud to Trial and the Law of Treason 86 Chapter 4. The Trial 107 Conclusion 165 Bibliography 174 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Wenceslaus Hollar, Archbishop Laud discharging a cannon 56 © Trustees of the British Museum Wenceslaus Hollar, Trial of Archbishop William Laud 114 © Trustees of the British Museum LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Attendance by Members of the House of Lords on the days of Archbishop Laud’s Trial. 115 ABBREVIATIONS BL British Library CJ House of Commons Journals. CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic EEBO Early English Books Online HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission HMC, Braye, MS. The Manuscripts of the House of Lords Vol. X1; Addenda 1514 – 1714, edited by Maurice Bond, 1962. Laud, Works The Works of the most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D. ed. W. Scott & J. Bliss, (Oxford: John Henry Parker. 1847-1860) in seven volumes. LJ House of Lords Journals NA National Archive ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. PLP Proceedings in the opening Session of the Long Parliament, ed. Maija Jansson, (Rochester, New York & Suffolk: University of Rochester Press, 2000-2007), in seven volumes. RHC J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, in eight volumes, 1659 – 1701. INTRODUCTION I On 10 January 1645, Archbishop Laud was executed at Tower Hill, bringing to an end the life of one of the most controversial characters of British seventeenth century history. This study intends to concentrate on the final years of Laud’s life: his arrest, imprisonment, trial and execution. It will consider the public view of Laud, reflected in the contemporary pamphlets, treatises, ballads, corantos, and newsbooks. Also, it will review the trial process from both the prosecution and the defence standpoints, and consider the law of treason as it prevailed at the time. It will be argued that the trial was effective in reflecting publically the legitimacy of parliament’s judicial procedures. It is a widespread view, expounded when it receives brief mention in civil war histories, that the trial was ‘a travesty of justice’.1 The insistence on the trial and beheading of Laud by parliament has been variously described as ruthless, and ‘a stain on its cause’.2 Laud’s trial is judged to have ‘gratified his more vindictive enemies’; however ‘the prosecutors found that the law strictly interpreted could not be stretched to find the Archbishop guilty’.3 History’s condemnation of the trial proceedings deserves a full reconsideration. The trial and execution for treason of the most senior prelate in England was clearly an extraordinary event and there are few precedents, especially given that Laud still had the support of the reigning monarch (although there is little 1 ODNB biography of William Laud written by Anthony Milton, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112, (accessed 18 April 2011). 2See I. Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms 1638-1652, (Harlow: Pearson, 2007) p. 248; and A. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution 1625-1660, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 295. 3 C.V.Wedgwood, The King’s War 1641-1647, (London: Fontana, 1966), p. 361. 1 doubt that by this time Charles’s support for his archbishop was somewhat lukewarm).4 The accepted view of the trial proceedings has been summed up by Michael Braddick; Accusations of treason and the promotion of popery were manifestly untrue and the prosecution sustained its case by unfair means: interfering with witnesses, failing to detail in advance the evidence which would be used to sustain the charges and giving Laud only a limited time to prepare answers before each hearing. Prynne, given access to voluminous private papers and driven by vengeance, was unable to substantiate the charges. Laud was not always straightforward in his answers, though: he was innocent as charged but less than candid in answer.5 The prosecution of Laud focused on religious controversies, and the subversion of the law and the traditional rights of parliament. A re-examination of the arguments put forward in the trial, and Laud’s rebuttal of those arguments, is overdue. The controversy surrounding Laud’s life is reflected in modern historiography. However there has been relatively little written of his final years, the public condemnation that accompanied his arrest, and his trial. Compared to the trial of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, in 1641, which has received far more attention both contemporaneously and subsequently, the trial of Laud was a lower key affair. In the foremost biography of Laud’s life, Hugh Trevor-Roper pays scant regard to the trial. He comments briefly on the three main components of the prosecution’s case; 4 The production of a pardon from Charles to Laud in January 1645 indicated that Charles showed some support for his archbishop although it should be borne in mind that the pardon was around 18 months old when it was presented. 5 M. Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire – A New History of the English Civil Wars, (London: Penguin 2009, first published 2008), p. 359. 2 subversion of the fundamental laws and the introduction of arbitrary government, subversion of religion and the introduction of popish superstition, and subversion of the ancient rights of parliament, but gives little account of the proceedings itself.6 In his biography, Charles Carlton covers the trial in a little more detail, and Alan Orr’s study of four trials, (including Strafford, Laud and the king himself) considers it from the perspective of the prevailing law of treason at the time, but does not greatly consider the public view of Laud as evinced in the popular press.7 Orr’s focus on treason is interesting and the interpretation, perhaps distortion, of the statutes regarding treason in order to bring a successful prosecution against Laud is a subject to which this study will, inevitably, return. It is not intended to give a detailed account of Laud’s career; however it is important to understand the main issues that have been the subject of historiographical debate and also led to the level of antipathy shown towards him within the public sphere.8 Laud attracted considerable hostility during his arch-episcopate and this clearly contributed to the vindictiveness with which his enemies pursued him after 1641. In 1608, still at an early stage in his career, Laud became chaplain to Richard Neile, bishop of Rochester, and he quickly became integrated into the group of ecclesiastics known as the Durham House set, led by Neile but also including Lancelot Andrewes and John Buckeridge, 6 H. Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, 1563-1645, (London: MacMillan, 1962-second edition), p. 420. 7 See D. Alan Orr, Treason and the State: Law, Politics, and Ideology in the English Civil War, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), in particular chapter 4. 8 The biographies of Laud by Trevor-Roper and C. Carlton, Archbishop William Laud, (London: Routledge, 1987), give a detailed review of Laud’s life and works.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War of Roses: a House Divided
    Stanford Model United Nations Conference 2014 War of Roses: A House Divided Chairs: Teo Lamiot, Gabrielle Rhoades Assistant Chair: Alyssa Liew Crisis Director: Sofia Filippa Table of Contents Letters from the Chairs………………………………………………………………… 2 Letter from the Crisis Director………………………………………………………… 4 Introduction to the Committee…………………………………………………………. 5 History and Context……………………………………………………………………. 5 Characters……………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Topics on General Conference Agenda…………………………………..……………. 9 Family Tree ………………………………………………………………..……………. 12 Special Committee Rules……………………………………………………………….. 13 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………. 14 Letters from the Chairs Dear Delegates, My name is Gabrielle Rhoades, and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Stanford Model United Nations Conference (SMUNC) 2014 as members of the The Wars of the Roses: A House Divided Joint Crisis Committee! As your Wars of the Roses chairs, Teo Lamiot and I have been working hard with our crisis director, Sofia Filippa, and SMUNC Secretariat members to make this conference the best yet. If you have attended SMUNC before, I promise that this year will be even more full of surprise and intrigue than your last conference; if you are a newcomer, let me warn you of how intensely fun and challenging this conference will assuredly be. Regardless of how you arrive, you will all leave better delegates and hopefully with a reinvigorated love for Model UN. My own love for Model United Nations began when I co-chaired a committee for SMUNC (The Arab Spring), which was one of my very first experiences as a member of the Society for International Affairs at Stanford (the umbrella organization for the MUN team), and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Later that year, I joined the intercollegiate Model United Nations team.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tale of a Fish How Westminster Abbey Became a Royal Peculiar
    The Tale of a Fish How Westminster Abbey became a Royal Peculiar For Edric it had been a bad week’s fishing in the Thames for salmon and an even worse Sunday, a day on which he knew ought not to have been working but needs must. The wind and the rain howled across the river from the far banks of that dreadful and wild isle called Thorney with some justification. The little monastic church recently built on the orders of King Sebert stood forlornly waiting to be consecrated the next day by Bishop Mellitus, the first Bishop of London, who would be travelling west from the great Minster of St Paul’s in the City of London. As he drew in his empty nets and rowed to the southern bank he saw an old man dressed in strange and foreign clothing hailing him. Would Edric take him across even at this late hour to Thorney Island? Hopeful for some reward, Edric rowed across the river, moaning to the old man about the poor fishing he had suffered and received some sympathy as the old man seemed to have had some experience in the same trade. After the old man had alighted and entered the little church, suddenly the building was ablaze with dazzling lights and Edric heard chanting and singing and saw a ladder of angels leading from the sky to the ground. Edric was transfixed. Then there was silence and darkness. The old man returned and admonished Edric for fishing on a Sunday but said that if he caste his nets again the next day into the river his reward would be great.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic Duane L
    Campbell Law Review Volume 32 Article 3 Issue 2 Winter 2010 January 2010 Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic Duane L. Ostler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Duane L. Ostler, Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic, 32 Campbell L. Rev. 227 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Ostler: Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clau Bills of Attainder and the Formation of the American Takings Clause at the Founding of the Republic DUANE L. OSTLER* I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 228 II. TAKINGS IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1787 ....................... 228 A. Takings in the Colonies Prior to Independence ....... 228 B. The American Revolution and the Resulting State Constitutions ................................... 231 III. THE HISTORY BEHIND THE BAN ON BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKINGS CLAUSE ................... 236 A. Events Leading to the Fifth Amendment .............. 236 B. Madison's Negative Opinion of a Bill of Rights ....... 239 C. Madison's Views on the Best Way to Protect Property Righ ts ................................................ 242 IV. SPECIFIED PROPERTY PROTECTIONS IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION .......................................... 246 A. Limits Specified in Article 1, Section 10 .............. 246 B. The Ban on Bills of Attainder .................... 248 V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bill of Attainder Clauses: Protections from the Past in the Modern Administrative State
    Copyright © 2014 Ave Maria Law Review THE BILL OF ATTAINDER CLAUSES: PROTECTIONS FROM THE PAST IN THE MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE John J. Cavaliere, III † INTRODUCTION To the Framers, enshrining prohibitions against bills of attainder in the Constitution1 was essential to prevent tyranny. These provisions serve the twin aims of protecting individuals from an improper use of legislative power and reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers.2 The Constitution of the United States contains two clauses proscribing the issuing of bills of attainder—one applying to the federal government,3 and the other to the states.4 At first blush, this may seem like either a stylistic embellishment or an over-scrupulous redundancy. But this repetition was far from superfluous. Article I treated the legislative power of both the federal and state governments. Thus, the Framers were compelled to provide a separate clause restricting the states because this protection was so important.5 Not even the † J.D. Candidate, 2014, Ave Maria School of Law; B.A., 2010, Florida State University. The author is grateful for his wife’s unwavering support throughout law school. The author further wishes to acknowledge the invaluable feedback and assistance from Prof. Patrick T. Gillen of Ave Maria School of Law, and the editorial staff of the Ave Maria Law Review. 1. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10; see also U.S. CONST. art. III, § 3 (“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.”).
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House of Commons
    Parliamentary Information List BRIEFING PAPER 04637a 21 August 2015 Speakers of the House of Commons Speaker Date Constituency Notes Peter de Montfort 1258 − William Trussell 1327 − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Styled 'Procurator' Henry Beaumont 1332 (Mar) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Sir Geoffrey Le Scrope 1332 (Sep) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Probably Chief Justice. William Trussell 1340 − William Trussell 1343 − Appeared for the Commons alone. William de Thorpe 1347-1348 − Probably Chief Justice. Baron of the Exchequer, 1352. William de Shareshull 1351-1352 − Probably Chief Justice. Sir Henry Green 1361-1363¹ − Doubtful if he acted as Speaker. All of the above were Presiding Officers rather than Speakers Sir Peter de la Mare 1376 − Sir Thomas Hungerford 1377 (Jan-Mar) Wiltshire The first to be designated Speaker. Sir Peter de la Mare 1377 (Oct-Nov) Herefordshire Sir James Pickering 1378 (Oct-Nov) Westmorland Sir John Guildesborough 1380 Essex Sir Richard Waldegrave 1381-1382 Suffolk Sir James Pickering 1383-1390 Yorkshire During these years the records are defective and this Speaker's service might not have been unbroken. Sir John Bussy 1394-1398 Lincolnshire Beheaded 1399 Sir John Cheyne 1399 (Oct) Gloucestershire Resigned after only two days in office. John Dorewood 1399 (Oct-Nov) Essex Possibly the first lawyer to become Speaker. Sir Arnold Savage 1401(Jan-Mar) Kent Sir Henry Redford 1402 (Oct-Nov) Lincolnshire Sir Arnold Savage 1404 (Jan-Apr) Kent Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct-Nov) Devonshire Or Esturmy Sir John Tiptoft 1406 Huntingdonshire Created Baron Tiptoft, 1426.
    [Show full text]
  • Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide Biographical Sources for Archbishops of Canterbury from 1052 to the Present Day
    Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide Biographical Sources for Archbishops of Canterbury from 1052 to the Present Day 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 2 Abbreviations Used ....................................................................................................... 4 3 Archbishops of Canterbury 1052- .................................................................................. 5 Stigand (1052-70) .............................................................................................................. 5 Lanfranc (1070-89) ............................................................................................................ 5 Anselm (1093-1109) .......................................................................................................... 5 Ralph d’Escures (1114-22) ................................................................................................ 5 William de Corbeil (1123-36) ............................................................................................. 5 Theobold of Bec (1139-61) ................................................................................................ 5 Thomas Becket (1162-70) ................................................................................................. 6 Richard of Dover (1174-84) ............................................................................................... 6 Baldwin (1184-90) ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649
    A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: KEY TOPIC AREAS 1629-42: Divisions over Religion: Arminianism and Laudianism; Puritanism, and Millenarianism Political divisions in Personal rule: Short Parliament • Arminianism and Laudianism • The Short Parliament • Puritanism • Continued Opposition in 1640 • The emergence of Millenarianism Political divisions • The Long Parliament. Political divisions in Personal rule: Finance • The leadership and importance of John Pym. • Fiscal policy used in Personal rule Causes of the English Civil War • The opposition that it caused • Events culminating in the outbreak of the Civil War. Political divisions in Personal rule: Scotland • Policies in Scotland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition Political divisions in Personal rule: Ireland • Policies in Ireland • The Crisis of 1637-42 • The extent of Opposition A-Level History, HIS1D: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 1603-1702 Absolutism Challenged: Britain 1603-49 Section 2: Revolution 1629-1649. Part 1: 1629-1642 KEY WORDS KEY INDIVIDUALS Articles of Perth: had been forced through the Scottish Kirk in 1618. They were a set of Charles Stuart: ruled as Charles I 1625-1649 commands outlining religious practices. To Presbyterians, the commands seemed like William Laud: a key Arminian cleric who became the Archbishop of Canterbury in Catholicism 1633 and made changes to the Anglican Church Bill of Attainder: medieval method which allowed anyone who was seen as a threat to the Henrietta Maria: Catholic wife of Charles I, she aroused suspicion of a Catholic state t be removed by Parliament without formal trial conversion of the King and the court Book of Sports: originally produced by James in 1618.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical Reasons for Having the Same Worship and Church Order
    BiblicalONE Reasons WAY for having the same Worship and Church Order GEORGE GILLESPIE “I will give them one heart, and one way that they may fear me for ever” JEREMIAH 32:39 ment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). This comes from walking by “the same rule” and minding “the same thing” Biblical Uniformity (Philippians 3:16). Gillespie maintained that any uniformity must be in things that are “either expressly grounded upon and warranted by the Word of God, or by necessary for the Church consequence drawn from it”. He rejects conforming to what is either against the Word of God or not required by it in matters of con- Introduction one amongst us; and mercy and truth, righteous- science. In Gillespie’s time, this kind of confomty ness and peace meeting together and kissing one was imposed by episcopalians. They freely admit- The following is an updated extract from an essay another, may dwell in this land”. ted that what they imposed were human inventions. by George Gillespie (1613-1648). Gillespie was one of the leading figures in the Scottish Church during a Uniformity could only be based upon reformation. George Gillespie asserted that a Church is either time of renewal and reformation. He was a power- These things were so difficult in themselves “that “true or hypocritical” in direct relation to whether ful and eloquent preacher but is best known as a the hand of the Most High God, which is now begun it does or does not mix “human inventions with clear and logical writer. to be stretched out in this land, must bring it to God’s holy worship”.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Title Page
    “Singing by Course” and the Politics of Worship in the Church of England, c1560–1640 By James Campbell Nelson Apgar A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Music in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Davitt Moroney, Chair Professor James Davies Professor Diego Pirillo Spring 2018 Abstract “Singing by Course” and the Politics of Worship in the Church of England, c1560–1640 by James Campbell Nelson Apgar Doctor of Philosophy in Music University of California, Berkeley Professor Davitt Moroney, Chair “Singing by course” was both a product of and a rhetorical tool within the religious discourses of post-Reformation England. Attached to a variety of ostensibly distinct practices, from choirs singing alternatim to congregations praying responsively, it was used to advance a variety of partisan agendas regarding performance and sound within the services of the English Church. This dissertation examines discourses of public worship that were conducted around and through “singing by course,” treating it as a linguistic and conceptual node within broader networks of contemporary religious debate. I thus attend less to the history of the vocal practices to which “by course” and similar descriptions were applied than to the polemical dynamics of these applications. Discussions of these terms and practices slipped both horizontally, to other matters of ritual practice, and vertically, to larger topics or frameworks such as the nature of the Christian Church, the production of piety, and the roles of sound and performance in corporate prayer. Through consideration of these issues, “singing by course” emerges as a rhetorical, political, and theological construction, one that circulated according to changing historical conditions and to the interests of various ecclesiastical constituencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Bishops Guidelines)
    Bishop’s Guidelines 2017 Diocesan Office Bishopscourt St Nicholas Church 24 St Margaret's Street Boley Hill Rochester Rochester ME1 1TS ME1 1SL Tel: 01634 560000 Tel: 01634 842721 Email: Diocesan Office Email: Bishopscourt Rochester Diocese Bishop’s Guidelines 2017 Foreword, by Bishop James “The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?” Preface to the Declaration of Assent (Canon C15) These words introduce the Declaration of Assent which is made by those being commissioned for ordained and lay ministries in our church. They indicate the particular place which the Church of England inhabits in the life of this country. Our heritage is that of the Gospel handed down through the generations, but also the heritage of our ministry and our buildings, together with a substantial role in the nation’s public life. Our ministry has a significant impact on the stories people tell each other of what it means to be a Christian in this country.
    [Show full text]
  • Poetry As Correspondence in Early Modern England
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 Unfolding Verse: Poetry As Correspondence In Early Modern England Dianne Marie Mitchell University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Recommended Citation Mitchell, Dianne Marie, "Unfolding Verse: Poetry As Correspondence In Early Modern England" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2477. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2477 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2477 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unfolding Verse: Poetry As Correspondence In Early Modern England Abstract This project recovers a forgotten history of Renaissance poetry as mail. At a time when trends in English print publication and manuscript dissemination were making lyric verse more accessible to a reading public than ever before, writers and correspondents created poetic objects designed to reach individual postal recipients. Drawing on extensive archival research, “Unfolding Verse” examines versions of popular poems by John Donne, Ben Jonson, Mary Wroth, and others which look little like “literature.” Rather, these verses bear salutations, addresses, folds, wax seals, and other signs of transmission through the informal postal networks of early modern England. Neither verse letters nor “epistles,” the textual artifacts I call “letter-poems” proclaim their participation in a widespread social
    [Show full text]
  • Biographical Appendix
    Biographical Appendix The following women are mentioned in the text and notes. Abney- Hastings, Flora. 1854–1887. Daughter of 1st Baron Donington and Edith Rawdon- Hastings, Countess of Loudon. Married Henry FitzAlan Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk, 1877. Acheson, Theodosia. 1882–1977. Daughter of 4th Earl of Gosford and Louisa Montagu (daughter of 7th Duke of Manchester and Luise von Alten). Married Hon. Alexander Cadogan, son of 5th Earl of Cadogan, 1912. Her scrapbook of country house visits is in the British Library, Add. 75295. Alten, Luise von. 1832–1911. Daughter of Karl von Alten. Married William Montagu, 7th Duke of Manchester, 1852. Secondly, married Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire, 1892. Grandmother of Alexandra, Mary, and Theodosia Acheson. Annesley, Katherine. c. 1700–1736. Daughter of 3rd Earl of Anglesey and Catherine Darnley (illegitimate daughter of James II and Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester). Married William Phipps, 1718. Apsley, Isabella. Daughter of Sir Allen Apsley. Married Sir William Wentworth in the late seventeenth century. Arbuthnot, Caroline. b. c. 1802. Daughter of Rt. Hon. Charles Arbuthnot. Stepdaughter of Harriet Fane. She did not marry. Arbuthnot, Marcia. 1804–1878. Daughter of Rt. Hon. Charles Arbuthnot. Stepdaughter of Harriet Fane. Married William Cholmondeley, 3rd Marquess of Cholmondeley, 1825. Aston, Barbara. 1744–1786. Daughter and co- heir of 5th Lord Faston of Forfar. Married Hon. Henry Clifford, son of 3rd Baron Clifford of Chudleigh, 1762. Bannister, Henrietta. d. 1796. Daughter of John Bannister. She married Rev. Hon. Brownlow North, son of 1st Earl of Guilford, 1771. Bassett, Anne. Daughter of Sir John Bassett and Honor Grenville.
    [Show full text]