• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 74-3268 MOREHEAD, Ann Edmondson, 1940- A CRITICAL EDITION OF ROGER ASCHAM'S TGKOPHILUS. [Portions of Text in Middle EnglishJ. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, A XEROX,Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan -T-iM .r. m n n e n - r A - T I J I M UAC QCCM AAir>DnC ■ i MCH CYAP.TI V AR RECEIVED A CRITICAL EDITION OF ROGER ASCHAM'S TOXOFHILUS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ann Edmondson Morehead, B. A., B. S., A.M. 30C 5§6 jjC The Ohio State University 1973 Reading Committee: Approved By Professor John B. Gabel Professor Ruth W. Hughey Professor Edwin Robbins ^dviser Department of English VITA February 29, 1940 , . Born - Columbus, Ohio 1961 .............................., . B.A., B, S. , The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 196 2............................................... A.M., The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1962-1967................................. Teaching Assistant, Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1968-1973 ................................. Instructor, Department of English, City College, San Francisco, California FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Literature of the Renaissance Studies in the Renaissance. Professor Ruth Hughey Studies in Bibliography and Textual Criticism. Professor Hughey and Professor John B. Gabel TABLE CF CONTENTS Page VITA......................................................... ii GENERAL INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 55 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF 1571 AND 1589 EDITIONS.............................................................................................................................. 64 TEXT: TO XO PHIL US, THE SC HOLE OF SHOOTINGE CONTEYNED IN TWO BOOKES........................................................... 66 TEXTUAL NOTES..................................................................................................................... 283 HISTORICAL COLLATION OF 1571 AND 1589 EDITIONS .... 287 EXPLANATORY NOTES................................................................................................. 296 LIST OF WORKS CITED ................................................................................................. 372 lit GENERAL INTRODUCTION The Occasion and Reception of Toxophilus Sometime during the first half of 1544, Roger Ascham wrote to 'vSir^William Paget, secretary of state and currently favored councilor of Henry VIII: "I have . written and dedicated to the king's majesty a book, which is now in the press, On the art of shooting, and in which I have shown how well it is fitted for Englishmen, both at home and abroad, and how certain rules of art may be laid down to ensure its being learnt thoroughly by all our fellow-countrymen. This book, I hope, will be published before the king's departure, and will be no doubtful sign of my love to my country, or mean memorial of my numble learning."* This description of the then unfinished Toxophilus, the schole of shootinge conteyned in two bookes, concludes a list of qualifications which Ascham hoped would persuade Paget to recom­ mend him for the Regius Professorship of Greek, left vacant by Sir 2 John Cheke's departure from Cambridge. However, Ascham's hopes were disappointed: on 14 July, before Toxophilus could be printed, * Latin letter: Ascham to Paget in The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. J. A. Giles (London, 1865), I, 52; translated on p. xl. 2 Giles, I, xxxi-xxxiii; Lawrence V. Ryan, Roger Ascham (Stanford, 1963), p. 41. 1 2 3 Henry sailed for France to undertake the siege of Boulogne, and 4 Cheke was allowed to retain his chair until 1547. Although Ascham's original plan for Toxophilus miscarried, the work brought him later success. He recalled the manuscript from the printer's and on 13 February 15 45 wrote to his friend, William 5 Grindal, that he was totally occupied with working on it. Later in 1545 the treatise was published by Edward Whytchurch. Hoping to acquire a patron to replace Archbishop Lee, who had died in September 1544,^ Ascham sent copies of Toxophilus to Queen Catherine; the Queen's brother, William Farr, the Earl of Essex; the Lord Chancel­ lor, Thomas Wriothesley; and other important members of Henry's 7 court. Even more ambitiously, Ascham dedicated Toxophilus to the King; the council received the work enthusiastically and Henry, in turn, summoned Ascham to Greenwich, where he granted him an Giles, I, xxxii. 4 Thompson Cooper, "Sir John Cheke." Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (London, 1921-22), IV, 179. 5 Latin letter: Ascham to Grindal in Giles, I, 75. £ Latin letters: Ascham to Cheke; Ascham to a Friend at York in Giles, I, 56-57, 58. 7 Latin letters: Ascham to the Earl of Essex; Ascham to Wriothesley; Ascham to Gardiner; Ascham to the Bishop of Wor- chester; Ascham to Fitzpatrick in Giles, I, 77-78, 78-79, 79-81, 81-82, 84-85. annual pension of. ^ 10. Toxophilus won for Ascham the high regard of the learned as well as the influential. The treatise became the authoritative work on both the use of the longbow and the importance of physical exercise, and for over a century was both imitated and plagiarized. More im­ portant perhaps than the many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century borrowings from and harkenings back to Toxophilus was the direct praise which the treatise received during the period from writers of other works which also extolled the humanistic ideal of proper physical training and exercise as an important part of the education of the 9 nobleman and the magistrate. Archery: "An Englishe Matter" Archery was a subject especially suited to Ascham1 s talents and purposes. He himself was a skilled archer, well-qualified to g Latin letters: Ascham to Gardiner; Ascham to Denney in Giles, I, 79, 82-83. 9 Ryan, pp. 5 6-59 gives a complete list of the imitations and plagiarisms of Toxophilus as well as a full account of the more direct praise which Ascham received from contemporary writers such as Richard Mulcaster, James Cleland, and Henry Peacham. On this point also see Lawrence V. Ryan, "Roger Ascham's Toxophilus in Heroic Verse," HLQ, 23 (1959), 119-24. write on the use of the longbow.*® Moreover, during his years at Cambridge, some of his fellows had judged that he spent so much time practicing with his bow that he neglected his books.** Thus, by de­ fending his favorite pastime in a treatise grounded in classical learn­ ing, Ascham was also defending himself and disproving the claims of his detractors. Finally, Ascham knew that a treatise on archery would be well received by the King. An expert archer himself, Henry was currently attempting to revive the national enthusiasm for the 12 long d o w . In 1512 he had renewed a statute of his father's prohibiting the use of crossbows without licences and encouraging the use of the In Toxophilus Ascham tells how he was brought up in shoot­ ing by Sir Humphrey Wingfield, a justice of the peace in whose house Ascham spent his boyhood. ^Letter: Ascham to Cecil in Giles, II, 351-52. 12 That Ascham1 s references in Toxophilus to Henry as an enthusiastic and expert shooter are true, we have contemporary testi­ mony to support. Hall's Chronicle includes this information in a description of May Day festivities in 1510: "And

Load more

  385

Copy Link