Ceremonial Conformity and Laudian Writing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANTI-CALVINIST? CEREMONIAL CONFORMITY AND LAUDIAN WRITING, RECONSIDERED (c. 1590-1640) ________________________________________________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _____________________________________________________ By TRAVIS KNAPP Dr. Anne Myers, Dissertation Supervisor May 2021 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled ANTI-CALVINIST? CEREMONIAL CONFORMITY AND LAUDIAN WRITING, RECONSIDERED (c. 1590-1640) presented by Travis Knapp, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. _____________________________________________________ Professor Anne Myers _____________________________________________________ Professor John Frymire _____________________________________________________ Professor William Kerwin _____________________________________________________ Professor David Read ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The intellectual and emotional debts I have accrued while completing this project are many. While personal relationships tend to be relegated to the end of the acknowledgements, I begin with them. I would like to start by thanking my parents for their unfailing and unending support. I have been extremely fortunate to have such loving parents who have offered encouragement and support at every step of my life, which has made my graduate school experience much more comfortable, even amidst the various struggles and chaos that emerge in the process. Part of the reason I chose to attend the University of Missouri was to stay close to my family, and being within driving distance to my parents, my brothers and their families, has made the far-too-short holiday breaks quite enjoyable and pleasant. Although I am sure I will inevitably omit meaningful friendships I have made over the years, no other has meant so much to me during grad school as my dear friend Allie’s. I never would have imagined this friendship would have outlasted jokes about HR tabs and quips about who has played DnD more recently (not me) and turned into something so meaningful. From my trivial text rantings to her presence and support for me, especially when I began this project, which coincided with one of the lowest emotional points of my life, I cannot express my thankfulness enough for her friendship. Similarly, I hope in a few years I will be able to repay the favors to another friend from my undergraduate years, Allison, who was happy to listen to me vent about the ups and downs of the job market. While I have known Maggie since she began her master’s at iii Mizzou, I only met her husband Joel this past year, when they moved into the house in front of mine. I have appreciated their friendship, camaraderie, and support (in long porch chats and leftover baked goods) as I finished this dissertation. I have been fortunate to receive much institutional and professional support over the course of this project. Through Mizzou’s participation in the Newberry Library Consortium, I have been lucky to attend workshops and receive research support from the Newberry and the Folger Shakespeare Libraries, the staff of which at both institutions have encouraged this project from its infancy. In addition to my assistantship, this project was funded in part by two fellowships, the MU English Department’s Harry J. and Richard A. Hocks Dissertation Fellowship and the University of Missouri Graduate School’s Raymond White Dissertation Year Fellowship. For finishing this project during a pandemic, the support has been instrumental, even if I did have to postpone a research trip to the UK. This work has benefited from many mentorships and academic relationships over the year. I probably would never have gone to graduate school in English if not for the support of Edward Jones, whose research mentorship got me into the early modern period and without whom, I doubt I would have come across or recognize the name Lancelot Andrewes, whose writings and sermons got me into this research path. Almost every chapter of this dissertation was workshopped by the MU English Department’s Critical Writing Workshop. My thanks to Emma Lipton, Nicole Songstad, Johanna Kramer, Elijah Guerra, McKenzie Peck, Thanh Nguyen, and Peter Land for their comments on various drafts and getting this project into decent argumentative shape. The professional iv mentorship of Steve Karian and Becca Hayes has helped me immensely in terms of refining my textual scholarship and preparing myself for the academic job market. Lastly, the support and rapport of my dissertation committee has done much in terms of improving my ability as a scholar. Their genial attitudes and warmth in humoring my questions made all of the required meetings and examinations something to enjoy and look forward to rather than fear. To John Frymire, I appreciate the casual reminders that, for as much as England is on an island, early modern Protestantism was not so insular. To Bill Kerwin, I appreciate the early opportunities to explore Laudian poetics in your seminars and your enthusiasm in learning about what I have to contribute to the study of the religious landscape of 17th-century Britain. To David Read, I am thankful for your critical eye that has helped improve my prose and argumentation and for the reminders that I need to be more mindful of the puritans. And finally, to my adviser Anne Myers, I am thankful for everything: for constant encouragement, for the willingness to allow me to come into her office and ramble about my projects for hours at a time while still helping me narrow my focus, and support in reading and commenting on every abstract, application, and draft I have written these last seven years. I would not have had the academic success if not for her support as well as everyone else mentioned (and those I may unfortunately omitted). And, to end the way all academic acknowledgements end: my work has been made better by the care and support of all mentioned here. Any shortcomings and errors that remain, quite naturally, are my own. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. ii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction: Reexamining Early Laudianism ................................................................................. 1 I. Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 II. Theological and Ecclesiological Context ................................................................................ 3 III. Laudianism, Avant-Garde Conformity, and Calvinism ......................................................... 9 IV. Chapter Outline and Interventions ....................................................................................... 20 Chapter One: “I came hither to Preach, not to dispute” – Oratory and Polemic in 1618 Court Sermons ......................................................................................................................................... 39 I. “We bethinke our selves: how to doe him Service. Reverently to performe holy dueties: Laudably to have our conversation among men” (2, 25-6). ....................................................... 43 II. The Duties of the whole man: “Give me leave to joyne these three, Adoration, Prostration and Kneeling together: because in trueth they should never be separated” (10) .... 50 III. “The custome of Easter made a contention, would make it an Easter day Text” (1) .......... 61 Chapter Two: Merely Popish? John Cosin and his “barking Libellers” ........................................ 77 I. The Texts of Cosin, Prynne, and Burton ................................................................................ 82 II. Cum Privilegio – The True Complaint? ................................................................................ 86 III. A Different Type of Altar Controversy – a Jesuit Frontispiece? ......................................... 89 IV. Whose Tradition? Catholic and Protestant Sources in Cosin’s Primer Material ................. 95 V. Daniel Featley: A Case-study in English Protestant Conformity ........................................ 110 VI. “And if this bee superstition, what is Religion?” (536): Addressing the Controversies of Fasting, Feasting, and Saints .................................................................................................... 118 VII. Featley’s Catechism & Conclusion .................................................................................. 126 Chapter Three: Laudianism in Private Devotionals, 1612-1631 .................................................. 136 I. Thomas Tymme’s 1618 A Chariot of Devotion ................................................................... 139 II. Lewis Bayly’s 1612 The Practise of Pietie ......................................................................... 151 III. Exeter: Henry Tozer’s 1628 Directions for a Godly Life and Charles Herle’s 1631 Contemplations and Devotions ................................................................................................ 163 IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................