Let He Who Objects Produce Sound Evidence: Lord Henry Howard and the Sixteenth Century Gynecocracy Debate Anna Christine Caney

Home , Catherine Howard, Charles Arundell, Henry Howard (diplomat), Richard Jenkyns

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Let He Who Objects Produce Sound Evidence: Lord Henry Howard and the Sixteenth Century Gynecocracy Debate Anna Christine Caney

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

LET HE WHO OBJECTS PRODUCE SOUND EVIDENCE: LORD HENRY HOWARD AND

THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY GYNECOCRACY DEBATE

Anna Christine Caney

A thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Anna Christine Caney defended on August 12, 2004.

______Paul Strait Professor Directing Thesis

______Jonathan Grant Committee Member

______Bawa Satinder Singh Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To all those who have helped me struggle through the process of research, writing and proofreading, proofreading, proofreading. I thank you for your patience, and understanding. I would like to thank Dr. Paul Strait, Dr. Jonathan Grant and Dr. Bawa Singh, who helped guide me through the difficult process of writing and defending this thesis while bearing the death of Dr. Richard Greaves, my major professor, and the man who truly taught me how to write by providing me with plenty of red ink. I will always keep his final written words on a draft page he corrected from his hospital bed, which simply read “very good.” I cannot express the gratitude I have for Dr. Greaves, and the realization of the loss Tudor history will have without him. Special thanks go out to Dr. Grant for standing by my side through Dr. Greave’s illness, as well as the illness of my own husband while writing my thesis. Thank you Joanna, Stephanie and Amy for allowing me to cry, and staying up till the morning hours proofreading my draft. If not for the three of you, this project would not have been accomplished. Thank you Joanna, a true comrade in arms of Tudor history and who understood what it meant when I had to refuse a night out because I had “a date with a man who’s been dead for three hundred years.” Finally, thank you to Anthony, Catherine, Allison and my parents for believing in my ability, giving me time and patience to accomplish my goals.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables v Abbreviations vi Abstract vii

INTRODUCTION: Queens, Claimants and Criticism 1

1. A LIFE 10

2. MOTIVES 22

3. THE NATURAL LAW 34

4. THE CIVIL LAW 45

5. THE SACRED LAW 52

CONCLUSION: An extraordinary work 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY 64

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 72

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Complete Manuscripts 25

Table 2: Partial Manuscripts or Manuscripts under a different name 28

v ABBREVIATIONS

Add. Additional

BL British Library

DNB Dictionary of National Biography

“Dutifull Defence” Henry Howard, “The Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Weomen.” BL Lansdowne MSS, 813 (1590)

CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series. Vol. 1, 1547- 1580; Vol. 2, 1581-1590.

CSPF Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series. Vol. 15, Jan. 1581-Apr. 1582

CSPS Calendar of State Papers Spanish Series. Vol.3, 1580- 1586.

MSS Manuscript

OED Oxford English Dictionary

PRO Public Record Office

SP State Papers

vi ABSTRACT

Glorious, creative, contentious and optimistic are all words that have been used to describe England in the second half of the Sixteenth-century. The Tudor age was one of great literature, military victory, religious tension, and, it was the age of queens. However, beneath the atmosphere of optimism that surrounded Mary I’s, and then Elizabeth I’s, ascension to the English throne lay a controversy that dug to the core of a man’s beliefs about society, challenged the foundations of traditional political thought, and forced men to decide what loyalty truly was. With Edward VI’s death in 1553, for the first time since the twelfth-century, there were no male heirs to the English throne. Not only was the immediate heir to the throne of England female, but all of the possible legal contenders for the thrones of England and Scotland were female as well. Mary’s succession fostered a debate among men as to whether a woman was not only legally allowed to rule England, but if she was spiritually and physically capable of doing so. Pamphlets and books discussing female rule were published throughout Mary’s reign, and with Elizabeth’s succession in 1558, the debate continued. This thesis seeks to discuss the Sixteenth century gynecocracy debate and Lord Henry Howard’s unpublished defense of female rule, “The Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Weomen,” which was presented to Queen Elizabeth in 1590. Howard’s beliefs and interpretation of Scripture, Philosophy and Law differ in many respects from contemporary authors who were writing both against, and in favor of women in general and female monarchy. Howard’s theories presented in “Dutifull Defence” will be compared to other contemporary works written on the subject, especially John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. After discussing Howard’s life and motives for writing “Dutifull Defense,” an analysis of his manuscript will be made by looking at the physical manuscripts themselves, comparing Howard’s use of theology, philosophy and law to other contemporary writers, and revealing what Howard believed about women in an age when they were still seen as physically inferior, and mentally incapable, of administering any form of government. In order to achieve a thorough view of Howard, I have consulted his personal letters, letters from Howard’s contemporaries, documents concerning Howard in the State Papers, and secondary sources discussing Howard, his life, and his written work. Additionally, works on early modern political thought, ancient and medieval philosophy and law, women and gender in the early modern period, and early modern English history have been consulted to provide contextual and content analysis. Combined, they will provide a view of a man who was remarkable in his time, and a work that was groundbreaking in his world.

vii

INTRODUCTION

QUEENS, CLAIMANTS AND CRITICISM

Considering the fractious political and social conditions in sixteenth-century England, it is not surprising that men committed time to an issue that challenged the religious, social, and political boundaries of society—whether or not a woman could rule as sole monarch. Faith, law and tradition were serious and sensitive issues, just as easily inciting men to violence as fostering them to debate. For authors declaring judgment on the subject of female rulers, individual opinion was more important than knowledge on the subject, and writers articulated their views with confidence, hoping to convince, or at least persuade, men that their words represented the truth. Early modern society theoretically viewed women as inferior subjects who were not fit to function outside accepted gender boundaries. Therefore, the presence of a female monarch in mid-century stimulated a debate, which continued for nearly fifty years. Amongst the entries to the gynecocracy debate, Lord Henry Howard embraced the concept that women were equal to men in nearly all aspects. He directly challenged the anti-gynecocracy writers, and produced one of the most comprehensive defenses of female authority in the sixteenth century. This chapter will discuss the context of the gynecocracy debate, why it polarized opinion so greatly, the men who wrote attacks and defenses of female rule; and how Henry Howard came to submit his entry into the debate. The Tudor age was one of exceptional literature, momentous military endeavors, religious upheaval; and it was the age of queens. Yet, the female rulers who dominated events from the mid-sixteenth century did not begin their reigns without controversy. At the time, the simple fact of their existence created a conundrum that reached to the core of a man’s beliefs about society, challenged the foundations of English political thought, and forced men to decide what loyalty truly was.1 However, despite the complexity of the possible ramifications, the problem facing men of both the religious and the political world was straightforward; for the first time since the twelfth century, there were no legitimate male heirs to the English throne. When Mary I acceded to the throne in August 1553, she became the first female to rule England in her own right, a position that came about by biological “accident.”2 Fifteen years earlier, the possibly of a queen regnant was a distant thought. For in 1537, after decades of waiting, Henry VIII and his third wife, Jane Seymore, finally produced a son, Edward. However, Henry’s desire to keep his lineage alive by producing a male heir had driven him to divorce Catherine of Aragon, his first wife and mother of his eldest daughter, Mary; and to divorce and execute Anne Boleyn, his second wife and mother of his next daughter, Elizabeth. His quest

1Constance Jordan, "Woman's Rule in Sixteenth-Century British Political Thought," Renaissance Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1987), 423. 2 Carole Levin, "Queens and Claimants: Political Insecurity in Sixteenth-Century England," in Gender, Ideology, and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women's Public Lives, ed. Janet Sharistanian (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986), 41; Mortimer Levine, "The Place of Women in Tudor Government," in Tudor Rule and Revolution, ed. Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 109.

1 may have given him a son, but in the process, Henry broke his allegiance with the Roman Church, a move that created future problems for all of his successors, be they male or female, and supplied the impetus that fueled the gynecocracy debate. Edward was a sickly child, and when it became clear that he would not live to adulthood, a situation England had not faced in three-hundred years came to the forefront. Not only was Edward’s immediate heir a woman, all of the legitimate, direct contenders for the English throne were female as well.3 Although the crown had descended through the matrilineal line (the male offspring of female relatives to the king) in the twelfth century, there had been a line of direct male heirs (the sons of sitting kings) between 1216 and 1399.4 Henry VII’s claim to the throne came through a female line, but without enough male heirs, the Tudor dynasty was never fully secure. His eldest son, Arthur, died and his only other male issue, Henry VIII only had one legitimate son. Edward had no children, leaving his Catholic sister Mary as legitimate heir. However, after Henry’s formation of the Church of England, the faith of the monarch became as important as the gender, and Edward’s council refused to accept Mary as queen. Therefore, in 1552, Edward (heavily influenced by his council) scrambled to ensure a Protestant succession. To this point, he tried to prevent Mary from becoming queen by altering his will, but the choice of an alternative candidate had to be made. Mary Stuart, granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret, and reigning queen in Scotland, had a strong claim to the English title; but the Stuart line had been barred from the succession in Henry VIII’s will. Moreover, she was Catholic, and unacceptable to Edward’s council. The young king’s other sister, Elizabeth, was Protestant, but like Mary, she was still unmarried. Additionally, Edward feared that his sisters would each marry a foreign prince, who in either case, “having the government and imperial crown in his hands [might] bring this noble free realm into the tyranny and servitude of the bishop of Rome.”5 Therefore, the council looked to an heir from another line of succession. Out of the possible females available, only one was acceptable, Lady Jane Grey, the granddaughter of Henry VIII’s younger sister Mary. Jane was a Protestant, but more importantly, Jane was suitably married to Guildford Dudley, the son of Edward’s protector and de facto ruler of the country, the earl of Northumberland. With Jane married to an Englishman, not only were the fears of foreign domination eased, Northumberland’s continued control of the government was assured. However, despite the fear of a return to Rome, the attempt to seize the throne from Mary did not succeed. Whether the heir was female or not, Englishmen upheld the right of inheritance over political expedience. Nevertheless, concerns over the succession were not alleviated. At the end of her reign Mary I remained childless, leaving Elizabeth as legal heir; and although no English laws preventing females from inheriting the crown, the idea of successive queens regnant was unprecedented. The doubt expressed over whether a woman could rule had become evident even before Mary I’s turbulent reign.6 Eleven years earlier, Scotland had dealt with a similar succession crisis. James V’s sickly and weak six-day old daughter Mary succeeded

3 At this time, in each direct family line descending from Henry VII—through his daughters Mary and Margaret and son Henry, there were no sons. Henry VIII had an illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond who died in 1536. Edward VI died childless in 1553. If either of Henry VIII’s sisters, Mary or Margaret, had had sons, they could have claimed the throne through their mother’s rights, over the claims of the female heirs—Mary and Elizabeth; for, indirect male offspring held precedent over direct female offspring. 4 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 424. Henry VII’s claim to the throne was by descent from John of Gaunt through Margaret, his mother. 5 T. B. Howell, ed., Complete Collection of State Trials, 21 vols. (London: R. Bagshaw, 1816), 1:740-741; Cited in Richards, 106. 6 Levine, 109.

2 to the throne after the king was fatally injured at the Battle of Solway Moss. Scotland faced a precarious situation as a country with a minor female heir. John Knox later expressed the anxiety felt within the realm: “All men lamented that the realm was left without a male heir to succeed.”7 It was generally feared that the presence of a heiress would lead to the loss of political independence to a greater power, like France or Spain.8 The concern over a female sovereign was not simply a matter of petty opinion. Before 1553, there had been no example of successful female rule to set a precedent. The only previous princess to assert her title as outright queen was in 1135, when Matilda, Henry I’s direct heir, claimed the crown of England, resulting in nineteen years of civil war.9 The subsequent success of male lineage had engrained in the English mind that the monarch should be a man. Henry VIII’s treatment of his eldest daughter was a clear example of preference for the male. Throughout Mary Tudor’s childhood, her father attempted to wed her to a foreign prince in hopes that she would then be able to rule under her husband as more of a consort than a queen regnant.10 At issue was not Mary’s right to inherit the office of monarch, but the prevailing idea that a woman would not be physically or mentally able to fulfill the duties of a sovereign, for the whole notion of monarchy revolved around traditionally male roles. A king was expected to show military leadership, dispense justice, and, since Henry’s break with Rome, uphold the Christian faith as Supreme head of the Church of England. If a woman were allowed to manage any of these roles as the head of state, and be admitted fit to govern men, it would alter the traditional social, political, and religious hierarchy, and require a new vision for society.11 More importantly, the theoretical limitations of a female monarch posed a threat, not only to herself, but also to the peace of her kingdom as a whole.12 Everything from her choice of councilors, attendants in the privy chamber, and most importantly, a spouse, could create factions well beyond those surrounding a king. Much of the rhetoric claiming that a woman would be unfit to rule evolved from the ancient idea that women were considered inherently physically frail, emotionally weak and therefore, inferior to men and subject to male authority.13 Female subordination was based on the traditional order of society that clearly defined a woman’s role as that of a wife and domestic matron. Legal and ethical boundaries were also based on a woman’s supposed frailty and incapacity to reason, justifying her pre-ordained functions as a subordinate, and excluding her from public life.14 The rules of proper feminine behavior acknowledged that women should be silent and chaste, another reason used to prevent them from participating in a civil forum.15 As a result, women were traditionally prohibited from holding public office and exercising authority over anyone outside their own estates. Nevertheless, although gender roles were defined theoretically, the reality of daily life provided many English women, especially those of the

7 Antonia Frasier, Mary Queen of Scots (New York: Random House Inc., 1969), 13. 8 Ibid. 9 R. B. Wernham, Before the Armada (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World Inc., 1966), 99. 10 Judith Richards, "To Promote a Woman to Beare Rule": Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England," Sixteenth Century Journal 28, no. 1 (1997), 102; Retha M. Warnike, Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983), 49. 11 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 422. 12 Ibid., 421. 13 Richards, 101. 14 Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 43-6, 57-8, 68. 15 Constance Jordan, "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women," Renaissance Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1983), 182.

3 higher classes, the opportunity to wield power. Throughout English history, women had established and maintained authoritative roles in religious society as abbesses or prioresses. Additionally, high-ranking, married English women could exert great political influence. Tudor women often controlled the running of their estates, managing the political, legal and social responsibilities that came with owning land. They were also able to influence their husband’s financial and political decisions. Legally, women could inherit estates, control wardships, participate in business ventures and hold guild memberships.16 According to a reading at the Inner Temple in 1503, common law allowed both single and married women to serve as justices of the peace.17 However, regardless of how considerable a high-ranking woman’s influence was, it was usually practiced by delegation from a “properly powerful male.”18 Even if social and political boundaries were not always clearly defined, religiously the placement of women by the tenets of Scripture was more definitive. According to Christian tradition, by the order of their creation and God’s decrees in Genesis chapters two and three, women were subordinate to men and remained socially inferior. God created Adam first; then Eve was formed from Adam, making her an ancillary subordinate even before the Fall. After the Fall, God made her subjection permanent.19 Some arguments went so far as to state that women were not created in the image of God, but only in the image of man, from whom she was drawn.20 Once established in Christian belief, opinion on women remained theoretically constant throughout the Middle Ages. She may have been praised for her womanly virtues, but it did not alter her hierarchal position. Historically, discussions on women were certainly not uncommon. Beginning in antiquity and moving through the Middle Ages, male opinions on the female nature and her proper position in society helped form the traditional views on women that were maintained through the early modern period. Aristotle was the most influential non-Christian writer on women, regarding them as imperfect due to biological fault; a woman was an incomplete male. From the twelfth century, theologians and scholars combined Aristotle’s ideas with Christian writing, synthesizing the idea of a woman’s inherent natural inferiority with God’s pre-determination of female subjection and subsequent sentence due to Eve’s sin.21 The writings of Christian theorists like Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas provided the sources for later Renaissance debates not only on Eve’s position, but also on how her example applied to women in a changing political, economic, and social culture.22 When humanist scholars entered the discussion in the late fifteenth-century, the debate over the nature of women became less a matter of malediction of the female character, and more a glorification, and at times hyperbole, of the acceptable female virtues. The most notorious of these works was Cornelius Agrippa’s Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex (1529),

16 Paula Louise Scalingi, "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516-1607," The Historian, no. 3 (1978), 60. 17 Barbara J. Harris, "Women and Politics in Early Tudor England," The Historical Journal 33, no. 2 (1990), 269. 18 Richards, 103. 19 Margaret R. Sommerville, Sex and Subjection: Attitudes to Women in Early-Modern Society (London: Arnold, 1995), 29. 20 Augustine expressed this view in On the Trinity, 12: 7. 21 Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 14. 22 Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F. McManus, Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of the Controversy About Women in England, 1540-1640 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 7.

4 which claimed that women were not only equal to, but superior to men in all respects. However, though praising women, these works did not debate the essential equality of a woman in comparison to a man, spiritually or politically. Agrippa did not go beyond the physical in his glorification of the lady.23 Despite his radical view that women should be priests in his work Utopia, Sir Thomas More expressed that women were still subject to men, especially their husbands.24 As a writer and tutor for Mary Tudor, Juan Luis Vives espoused education for high- born women; however, he stressed that women were unsuited to be rulers.25 The debate over the nature and position of women entered a new phase with the accession of Mary Tudor. For the earlier humanists, gynecocracy was theoretical, but in 1553 the concept of a female sovereign became a reality. A war of words ensued as men penned their opinions on a woman’s position in society, her character, her ability to hold a position of public or private authority, and especially, if Mary Tudor could rule as a sole monarch. The most vocal anti-gynecocracy authors were English and Scottish Protestant exiles who had fled to the continent after Mary’s accession. Although their foremost concern was Mary’s dedication to the Roman Catholic Church, they were also convinced that a queen regnant opposed the laws of God, nature and society. Moreover, her mental incapacity would endanger the safety of the kingdom. Sir David Lindsay (1490- 1555) was one of first to oppose female rule in the mid- century debate. In his 1553 work, Ane Dialougue betuix Experience and ane Courteour, off the Miserabyll Estait of the World, the Scottish poet and Protestant reformer used narrative poetry to condemn female rulers, asserting divinely ordained male preeminence and authority over women.26 In 1554, Thomas Becon published An humble suplicacioun unto God for the restoring of his holye woorde unto the churche of England.27 An exiled propagandist, Becon mercilessly attacked Mary I and her council, comparing her to Jezebel and proclaiming her reign to be a sign of divine punishment.28 The most vehement condemnations of Mary Tudor, and any women who dared to place themselves in positions of authority, came from Christopher Goodman and John Knox, Calvinist radicals who advocated physical resistance against ungodly rulers. To them, a Catholic queen regnant was a direct threat to God’s ordained hierarchy and to the independence of England and Scotland if Mary wed a foreign, Catholic prince.29 Knox’s First Blast against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1559) directly attacked Mary Tudor, by declaring female monarchy to be an abhorrence to the laws of God, nature, and civil society, and by condemning her and all women who dared to assume a position of authority over men.30 Christopher Goodman was less concerned with the gender of the ruler, though he did not approve of female regiment, but the

23 Cornelius Agrippa, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, translated and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). 24 Sir Thomas More, Utopia, trans. Ralph Robynson (1556), ed. David Harris Sacks (Boston, Massachusets: Bedford St. Martins, 1999), 193. 25 Foster Watson, ed., Vives and the Renascence Education of Women (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 54. 26 David Lindsay, Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld (Paris: J. Petit(?), 1558); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 157. 27 Thomas, Becon, An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte (Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554). 28 Scalingi, 64-66. 29 Ibid.; Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 430; Richards, 117. 30 John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972).

5 religion of the sovereign. He denounced Mary Tudor as a tyrant in his 1558 work, Howe Superior Powers oght to be Obeyed.31 Later into Elizabeth’s reign, George Buchanan published a History of Scotland (1586), in which he bewailed that women were incapable of overseeing a successful government, due to their natural inferiority.32 In response to the attacks against women and female rulers, pro-gynecocracy treatises began to appear at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign. Even with the accession of the Protestant queen, there was concern over the influence the published attacks, still being circulated in England, might have on men unhappy with the 1559 religious settlement.33 The queen’s defenders supported the view that female regiment was not against God’s law or the law of nature, and that a woman could successfully act as a head of state. In 1559, John Alymer published An Harborowe For Faithfull and Trewe Subjectes, a direct rebuttal of Knox.34 John Leslie, an emissary for Mary Stuart, declared his support for the queen and all women rulers in A Defence of the Quene of Scotland (1569).35 The Defence of the Apology of the Church of England (1562) written by John Jewel, the Bishop of Salisbury, and a staunch supporter of Elizabeth, defended the right of female inheritance and extolled female virtues.36 In general, Elizabeth’s defenders were men in the service of the crown, related to the court in some manner, and members of the aristocracy. Their works supported women, but were also written to attract patronage, or in gratitude for favors from the crown.37 Alymer and Jewel were Marian exiles who returned to serve in the Church of England. Leslie was the Catholic Bishop of Ross and served Mary Stuart until her death in 1586. Their writings were published and accepted as successful rebuttals of radical detractors, especially John Knox. Late in Elizabeth’s reign, however, another defense of female regiment appeared, written under very different circumstances. Lord Henry Howard, the youngest son of Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, lived most of his life on the fringes of court society after the execution of his father in 1552, and his brother in 1572. 38 After years of struggle, in 1590, while desperately trying to redeem his family name, Howard presented Elizabeth with his work “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Woemen,” an extensive and extraordinary defense of a woman’s right to inherit titles and authority by declaring their equality to men in spirit, mind, and ability. Howard was perhaps one of the most fascinating characters in Elizabethan society. As a nobleman, scholar, and prolific writer, Howard should have personified the ideal courtier who could elicit favor from his queen. Instead, due to the mishaps of his family, he spent thirty years of his life, 1570-1603, defending his honor, protecting his life, and writing to maintain his

31 Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931); Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 163.), Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 425. 32 George Buchanan, History of Scotland (1586). 33 Scalingi, 69. 34 John Alymer. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience (London: John Day, 1559). 35 John Leslie, A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569). 36 John Jewell, An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe (London: Reginald Wolf, 1562). 37 Amanda Shephard, Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England (Keele, Staffordshire: Ryburn Press, 1994), 24. 38 Before Howard’s father and brother were executed for treason, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, both his cousins, were also executed by Henry VIII.

6 livelihood. To this point, Howard wrote candidly about his experiences and revealed glimpses of personal emotion throughout his works. In addition to methodically defending female regiment, “Dutifull Defence” was an autobiography of his life and a testament to his opinions about women. His writing represented the century in which he lived, and his ambition embodied the standard of court behavior expected at the time. Howard’s definitive support of women was unique. Nevertheless, he has received little attention from scholars discussing the gynecocracy debate. There have been very few books written about Lord Henry Howard, and none specifically on his early life. In her biography Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I, Linda Levy Peck presents an overview on Howard’s life after 1603, but limits her coverage of his life during Elizabeth’s reign to the first chapter.39 Her sources for these tantalizing few pages are drawn from the few other works that have been produced on Howard: A brief biography appearing in the appendix of G. F. Nott’s, The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey; the Dictionary of National Biography; and the various manuscript collections contained in English libraries. Nott’s work is the eldest, a very positive account, with at times sycophantic support of Howard’s career.40 Another work containing glimpses of Howard’s life is a biography of his father, Henry Howard, the earl of Surrey. W. A. Sessions, Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey, provides details of Howard’s early childhood and some analysis of his later memories of his father.41 Biographies and document collections on other significant courtiers, for example, Sir Christopher Hatten; Sir Robert Dudley, the earl of Leicester, and Edward de Vere, the earl of Oxford, include Howard in their analysis, though most often as a insignificant and embittered figure, living in the shadows of glorious men. Howard is also briefly mentioned in Wallace MacCaffrey’s biography Elizabeth I, and a few works on Tudor England, including MacCaffrey’s second book in his series on the queen’s political world, Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1752-1588.42 Except for D. C. Peck’s analysis of Catholic courtiers and their involvement in conspiracy during the 1570s and 80s, most historians ignore Howard’s involvement in the shady world of court politics. In his edited edition of Leicester’s Commonwealth Peck is the only author to discuss in detail Howard’s involvement in the numerous conspiracies against Elizabeth.43 Essential to understanding the man who wrote “Dutifull Defence” are the numerous manuscript sources available containing Howard’s letters and papers. The main manuscript source for his personal letters is BL, Cotton MSS, Titus CVI., which includes documents written throughout his life, though for the period up to 1603 they are mainly letters written to Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth. Within the miles of microfilm containing the State Papers— Domestic Series, Foreign Series, Spanish Series, Papers Relating to Scotland, and the State Papers Scottish, there are numerous letters from Henry Howard, and documents concerning him that are not always listed under his name in the Calendars. Howard’s handwriting was a unique,

39 Linda Levy Peck, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (London: Allen and Unwin, 1988). 40 G. F. Nott, ed., The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and of Thomas Wyatt the Elder, 2 vols., vol. 1 (New York: AMS Press, 1965). 41 W.A Sessions, Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 42 Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (London:Arnold Publishing, 1993); Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1752-1588 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). 43 D. C. Peck, ed., Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985).

7 extremely legible italic form, which made his letters easy to recognize when winding through film. However, many individual pages are faded or damaged, making the use of quotations in secondary sources invaluable for clarifying illegible sections. BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula III, IV and VII contain documents concerning Howard’s relationship with Mary queen of Scots and the numerous interrogations Howard endured during the 1580s. Still unused as a source for his life during Elizabeth’s reign are many of the official papers of his family and closest friends. For example, the papers of the earl of Sussex, a good friend of Howard’s, of the countess of Richmond, his guardian after his father’s death, and of his three sisters with whom he remained in contact for most of his life, have yet to be utilized as a source for Howard’s life before 1590. If sources for Howard’s early life are difficult to find, examinations of his work are nearly impossible. The only book analyzing any part of “Dutifull Defence” is Amanda Shephard’s Gender and Authority in Sixteenth Century England. Using Howard’s manuscript as part of a larger discussion of the debate that arose over John Knox’s First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1558), the most widely used book when focusing on the gynecocracy debate, Shephard provides adequate coverage of Howard’s use of the civil law and the creation debate, but lacks analysis of his theories of natural law, the platform on which Howard based all of his major points. For example, Shephard only briefly mentions Howard’s theory of natural law by quoting his definition of it, without providing any further discussion. In doing so, she fails to credit Howard for having an original state of nature theory, crediting only one of the authors she addresses as having one.44 Very few books address the gynecocracy issue in detail, though it has received more attention in articles. However, in these discussions Howard’s work is either only mentioned by title or entirely left out of the debate. Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, briefly acknowledges his work. Constance Jordan, Judith Richards, and Paula Louise Scalingi, discuss the Knox debate, but leave Howard out completely.45 Katherine Henderson and Barbara F. McManus also disregard Howard’s work in their treatment of the Renaissance debate on women in Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640.46 An upcoming dissertation by Daniel Andersson, from the Warburg Institute at the University of London, will be exploring Howard’s use of rhetoric, providing a much needed source on Howard’s work.47 In light of the lack of attention given to “Dutifull Defence,” an analysis of his work offers several challenges. Howard’s work contains nearly six hundred citations from both well-known and more obscure authors. However, for this work, which aims to discuss his general theories and conclusions, selected sources have been chosen that best illustrate his arguments. Additionally, although many detractions and defenses of women were written during the sixteenth century, Howard did not have had access to all of them, nor were they all published before 1590, the year Howard finished his manuscript. Within the text, Howard mentioned or implied references to specific treatises—the anti-gynecocracy works of John Knox, Christopher Goodman, Jean Bodin, and George Buchanan; and the works of John Alymer, John Leslie and John Jewell, which either supported Mary queen of Scots or Elizabeth.. Therefore, comparisons

44 Amanda Shephard, Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England. 45 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule”; Judith Richards, ""to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule"; Paula Louise Scalingi, "The Scepter or the Distaff." 46 Henderson and McManus, Half Humankind. 47 Daniel Andersson, “Studies in the Elizabethan Writings of Henry Howard, 1540-1613.” (upcoming). Mr. Andersen has been very helpful in providing additional sources and confirming my conclusions for this thesis.

8 to “Dutifull Defence” will be made in respect to these works. In addition to the primary sources Howard cited throughout the work, secondary sources covering the issues brought up in “Dutifull Defence” will be used to place the work and Howard’s argument into proper context. Howard combined works on philosophy, history, biblical exegesis, and his own personal opinion to create an extensive and exhaustive defense of female rulers. Although discussion of the intricacies of the entire manuscript is not possible for this thesis, a broad and generalized look at his interpretation of scholarship provides adequate analysis to determine his motives and beliefs, and allows Howard to be placed in the broader context of the gynecocracy debate. Comparison to contemporary works relating directly to gender, with modern analysis of Renaissance attitudes is helpful, though modern labels like “feminist” and “misogynist” cannot be applied to sixteenth-century writers, although their works often exhibited what in modern terms would be considered feminist or misogynist tendencies. Authors were working with the limited physiological and psychological knowledge and accepted traditions of their time. The gynecocracy debate was carried out among the educated, literate, and for the most part, aristocratic elite. Theories expressing radical opinion for either point of view did not necessarily reflect those of the population as a whole, nor was the opinion of the majority of the country considered to be of value. A rigorous, social hierarchy remained in place in sixteenth-century England, and the detractors and defenders of female authority were dealing with a narrow aspect of the “chain of being” that differed from the reality that surrounded most women’s lives. Relegated to footnotes and inadequate analysis, Howard’s work remains neglected, and its significance underrated. Therefore, it is the purpose of this work to discuss Henry Howard and “Dutifull Defence.” First, a look at Howard’s life and the physical copies of “Dutifull Defence” will demonstrate his motives for writing a defense of Queen Elizabeth and reveal a man determined to improve his financial and social position, as well as create what he believed to be competent and extensive scholarship based on his belief in a woman’s ability to inherit and fulfill the role of a monarch. Secondly, a broad analysis of “Dutifull Defence” will place Henry Howard in the context of the gynecocracy debate, by discussing who he was writing against, why he chose the particular anti-gynecocracy authors he did, and convey how his views challenged traditional thought about women in sixteenth-century England. For, although not unique in its parts, his argument in “Dutifull Defence,” was revolutionary in its whole, and embodied not only opinions in Tudor England, but foreshadowed an age to come.

9 CHAPTER 1

AN OBSCURE LIFE

Brilliant, loyal, pedantic, and poisonous are all words that have been used to describe to Lord Henry Howard. Living during the most dynamic and turbulent years of Elizabeth I’s reign, Howard’s exploits seemed to be those of a man bent on treachery, though he always claimed complete loyalty to his sovereign queen. This chapter lays out a chronological history of the main events in Henry Howard’s life until 1590, when he presented “Dutifull Defence” to Queen Elizabeth. The challenges Howard faced during the first half of his life, both traumatic and academic, gave him the necessary knowledge and resolve to fulfill what he saw as his duty to the reigning monarch; and although his circumstances often interfered with his ability to write, Howard managed to produce one of the most thorough defenses of female monarchs in the sixteenth century. The circumstances surrounding Howard’s early life reveal a man fully prepared to take on the challenge of defending a female monarch in writing. Born in 1540 into one of the most illustrious families in England, Howard learned the benefits and risks of nobility at an early age. His father, Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, was the second highest ranking peer in England, as well as an acclaimed author and poet. Through the efforts of his grandfather, Thomas Howard, third duke of Norfolk, Surrey had reached the pinnacle of his career by 1540, serving in the army, succeeding in court tournaments, and introducing the Italian Renaissance style to English poetry.48 As a result of his social prominence and literary gifts, Surrey spared no expense in the instruction of his children, enlisting tutors of the highest reputation, including the European scholar Hadrianus Junius. Surrey’s daughters, Jane, Catherine, and Margaret received the same education as his sons, Thomas and Henry, a point Howard did not forget as an adult.49 Although Henry and his siblings began their life with all the prospects of aristocracy, their good fortune was soon lost. Surrey had enemies at court who preyed upon the earl’s recent military blunders in France, his arrogance, and Henry VIII’s paranoia. The king was a nervous man in the last years of his reign. Edward, Henry’s son and heir to the throne was extremely frail and surrounded by courtiers who were anxious to control the government during his minority. Henry perceived any action that threatened the succession as treacherous. When Howard was only six, his father and grandfather were both found guilty of treason after supposedly displaying the arms of Edward the Confessor, a privilege preserved for the royal heir.50 Surrey was executed in 1547 and his children were placed in the care of their aunt, the duchess of Richmond, who continued their education, appointing John Foxe, the martyrologist, as their tutor.

48L. L. Peck, Northampton, 7. 49 W.A. Sessions, Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Sessions notes that the proof of the daughter’s training was demonstrated by their achievements later in life. John Foxe wrote about Jane Howard, “she might well stand in competition with the most learned men of that time, for the praise of elegancy in both.” Sessions, 204. 50 Ibid., 366-67; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 7.

10 When Mary Tudor came to the throne in 1553, the exonerated duke of Norfolk dismissed the Protestant Foxe and placed Howard as a page in the house of the zealous Catholic, John White, bishop of Lincoln and then Winchester.51 While in White’s service, Howard acquired a strong affinity for Catholicism, and nurtured his early love for books and methodical study.52 By the age of sixteen, Howard was fluent in Greek and Latin, in addition to being well read in theology, philosophy, civil law, and history, an accomplishment he referred to in a 1583 dedication letter to Francis Walsingham:

So from the sixteenth year of my age, until this present day, (I know not whether by instinct of providence, or warning by mishaps of some that went before) my manner has been in the course of all my reading, to store up all such reasons and examples as occurred either in philosophy, the civil laws, divinity or histories.53

Having established his love of knowledge, Howard would utilize it for the remainder of his life. Upon her accession in 1558, Queen Elizabeth undertook Howard’s welfare and education. She granted him an annual stipend and sent him to Cambridge where he took his degree in 1564. Facing the financial difficulties of a younger son in Tudor England, Howard followed an unusual course for a member of the aristocracy by staying on at Trinity Hall as a lecturer and scholar. An early seventeenth-century biography of Howard commented that his achievement in securing a position at Cambridge was due to his “great learning,” although Howard had more important reasons for obtaining employment.54 Teaching was a necessary course for Howard to take, since his allowance from the crown was insufficient for his support and was paid irregularly. Consequently, Howard was the only nobleman in Elizabethan England to teach at a university. Quickly earning a reputation as an instructor, Howard delivered lectures on rhetoric and civil law in Latin. Moreover, he increased his proficiency in Spanish, French, and Italian and knowledge of contemporary European literature. His dedication to Renaissance scholarship and training in rhetoric and civil law, which instilled in him an emphasis on authority, helped shape his writing, and provided additional components necessary to write a scholarly defense of Elizabeth.55 Trinity Hall was not, however, where Howard found the degree of reputation and acclaim he sought. His strong belief in the rights and privileges of nobility prevented him from being content solely as a scholar. Howard’s desire was to be at court serving the queen, and he felt that being forced to make his living as an instructor left him clearly below the position he was due by birth. He declared this view in a letter to Elizabeth when he wrote: “I vow to almighty God that I would gladly shorten and abridge my wretched days, without offence to God, than live beneath the compass of my birth.”56 While at Trinity Hall, Howard became friends with Michael Hicks,

51 Norfolk escaped execution, as Henry VIII died the night before the duke’s death sentence was to be carried out. He languished in prison until Mary I freed him after Edward VI’s death. 52 DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, 428; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 9. 53 Henry Howard, A Defensative against the Poison of Supposed Prophesies (London: John Charlewood, 1583), iii. 54 Howard’s biographer stated: “This Lord in his youth being very studious, and given to the knowledge of good letters became for his learning and eloquence in the Greek and Latin tongues the rhetoric reader in the University of Cambridge.” B.L., Add. MSS 6298, fol. 285; Also cited in L. L. Peck, Northampton. 8. 55 DNB, s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, 428,429; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 8. 56 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 3v.

11 one of Lord Burghley’s secretaries, and through him kept apprised of court news and gossip. By 1570, Howard felt ready to enter the world of politics and patronage, but there was still one major obstacle for him to overcome—his Catholicism. Residency at Cambridge may have increased Howard’s knowledge of Aristotle and Cicero; nevertheless, ancient wisdom did not protect him from political reality. The court in the 1560s was wrought with division. The Hapsburg marriage negotiations and uneasiness with the Elizabethan settlement split gentlemen into religious factions, which at times resorted to violence. Trinity Hall was no refuge from the splintered world around him, and Howard was soon reacquainted with part of his family’s troubled past. The college had been under suspicion for Catholic leanings, and there Howard first found himself accused of recusancy. In 1568, Howard wrote the first of many letters in his own defense, pleading with Burghley that he not be suspected of Catholic leanings.57 Howard did not believe his religious affiliation would affect his duty and loyalty to Elizabeth. Nevertheless, despite his protestations and espousal of loyalty to the English queen and her regime, accusations of heterodoxy followed him for the next twenty years. Thoroughly determined to claim his rightful place at court, Howard left Cambridge in 1570. He did so upon the premise that he would benefit from his main court connection, his brother Thomas, fourth duke of Norfolk, who was the premier nobleman in England at the time, and deeply involved in court politics. Unfortunately, Howard could not have been more wrong. His arrival at court angered Elizabeth, who withdrew his stipend and soon forbade him from appearing at court altogether, most certainly due to his brother’s intrigues. When Mary Stuart, queen of Scots arrived in England in May 1568, she had fostered new hopes for English Catholics, for in her they saw the opportunity for tolerance and a Catholic succession if Elizabeth had no children. To this point, Mary’s supporters felt it was important for her to have a suitable English husband, and Norfolk was the obvious candidate. He was of suitable rank, being the sole duke in England, and came from an unblemished lineage. In addition, Norfolk was the richest subject in the realm, a widower, and most importantly, a devout Catholic.58 The duke was also conscious that his position at court did not match his rank. In order to appease his discontent and resentment of the upstarts who enjoyed Elizabeth’s confidence, Norfolk wound his way into conspiracy. Between 1568 and 1571, the illustrious duke was directly involved in three intrigues involving Mary and several Catholic gentlemen in the English court, including the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Northumberland, and Westmorland. Originally, Norfolk planned on marrying the Scottish queen so her position in England could be stabilized, but the plan soon escalated into more treacherous actions, specifically, the Northern Rebellion and the Ridolfi plot. Both schemes would have wed the duke to Mary and secured her claim as heir to the English throne. However, both plots also mandated either Elizabeth’s abdication or assassination. In the end, both arrangements failed; Norfolk was arrested for treason and condemned. Determined to help, Howard wrote to Burghley, pleading for his brother’s life, but to no avail.59 Norfolk was executed in 1572, and Howard was arrested for possible involvement with his brother’s treachery. Howard was placed in the archbishop of York’s custody and detained at Lambeth palace. While there, Howard described his incarceration as one of “great discomfort” and

57 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 7r; DNB s.v. Henry Howard, 29; Nott, 428; L. L. Peck, Northampton, 8. 58 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 114. MacCaffrey provides a detailed account of the Norfolk marriage, the Northern Rebellion, and the Ridolfi plot. 59 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C III, fols. 97r-98r.

12 expressed that he “would rather have an open imprisonment in the Fleet than the close keeping in the archbishop’s palace.”60 He petitioned for his release, but was denied and remained in custody for several months. Howard was eventually cleared of any complicity in Norfolk’s treason, and his actual involvement with either the Northern Rebellion or the Ridolfi plot is doubtful. When Norfolk’s private secretary, Laurence Banister, made his confession about the affair, he stated that Howard had been considered an appropriate suitor for Mary if his brother was unable to marry her. Banister declared: “[Norfolk] did first break with me of the matter of the queen of Scots; and told me how he was earnestly moved thereunto by divers of his friends, and that he had no great Liking so to do, but rather wished to have his brother Henry marry her.”61 Banister went on to say, however, that Norfolk’s friends who were in favor of the marriage would not accept Lord Henry as an alternative candidate, “for they said, his Grace was well known unto them, and they were assured of him what to find, but so they were not of the Lord Henry his brother.”62 Howard may not have known about his brother’s intentions to use him as a possible substitute groom, but he must have been aware of the general marriage scheme, since many meetings had been held at Howard House, where he was residing at the time. Howard’s name did not appear in any of the other documents related to the conspiracies, including the accounts of Norfolk’s interrogations and confession. Nonetheless, individuals at court were convinced that Howard was involved in treachery. As late as 1595 Lady Bacon still believed him guilty when she wrote to her son: “He [Howard] is . . . no doubt a papist inwardly, and lieth in wait; the duke had been alive but by his practicing and still soliciting him, to the duke’s ruin and the persons of that stamp; [he is] a very instrument of the Spanish papists.”63 In 1572, however, Elizabeth stood as Howard’s ally, clearing him of guilt, offering him a yearly pension, and allowing him to appear at court. In the dedication letter of “Dutifull Defence,” Howard spoke of the queen’s generosity: “[T]hough I was but lately crept or rather swept out of the ruins of my house, your Majesty most graciously admitted me to the kissing of your sacred hand, you regarded me with pity and relieved me with favor.”64 Howard was free, but he did not escape continued suspicion. For the next thirty years he lived by his wits, trying to avoid the Queen’s wrath while continuously being harassed for his supposed intrigues against her. After Norfolk’s execution Howard resided at Audley End, continued with his studies, helped with the care of his brother’s children and, according to Walsingham’s network of spies, maintained correspondence with Mary Stuart. In late 1574 one Henry Cockyn was arrested for carrying letters from the Scottish queen. During his interrogation, Cockyn not only confessed to having worked with the earl of Shrewsbury in assisting Mary’s cause, but admitted to carrying letters between the queen of Scots and Howard. Howard’s nephew Philip, future earl of Arundel, was also implicated.65 Howard was questioned by Lord Hunsdon on the matter, and though no evidence was found to convict him, he was imprisoned once again.66 When released, Howard

60 CSPD, 1:441; PRO, SP 12/86/25. 61 A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the Year 1571- 1596. Vol. 2, Part 1 (London: William Bowyer, 1759), 134. 62 Ibid. 63 Thomas Birch, Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1:2 (London: 1754), 227. 64 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 6r. 65 SP, Mary Queen of Scots, 10/12. Cited in Conyers Read, Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 2: 3, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), 349. 66 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C IV, fol. 209; CSP Scottish, 1574-81,134; PRO, SP 12/103/53.

13 finally experienced a time of relative peace, in which he attended to his writing and personal activities. He was prohibited from appearing at court, although he kept up with gossip and personal intrigues.67 Dependent on a small income given to him by his sister, Howard also continued his attempts to seek patronage and restore his reputation by writing numerous epistles, letters, and treatises for members of court. The dedication letter in “Dutifull Defence” provides an autobiographical account of Howard’s life between 1577, the year he was asked to write the defense, and 1590, when he presented it to Elizabeth. Howard was candid about his misfortunes during the 1580s, and about why it took him so long to finish his manuscript. In addition to numerous personal letters, documents in the State Papers- Domestic Series and the Calendar of State Papers- Domestic Series, Spanish Series, and Foreign Series correspond with Howard’s account in the dedication letter. By 1576, Howard once again seemed to be on good terms with Burghley. In fact, in June 1576, and again in January 1577, Howard dined with the Lord Treasurer at his residence.68 It was most certainly at some point during 1577 that Howard was asked to write the treatise, most likely because it was an appropriate time for him to seek a reconciliation with Elizabeth. Howard explained that, “an honorable privy councilor with an earnest charge upon the duty which I ought unto your Highness before all the world, and the love which I professed to himself for special respect to shape some present answer to the same.”69 Not surprisingly, his freedom from suspicion did not last long. Howard’s troubles soon returned, and instead of a time of rest and repose, the years between 1577 and 1590 were a time of poverty, persecution, and accusations due to his Catholicism, his dealings with the Spanish, and his correspondence with Mary queen of Scots. Howard revealed that when he wrote the dedication letter it had been thirteen years since receiving a “raising incentive against the regiment of queens in general,” though he did not say how long he waited to begin working on the defense. He stated that after reading about the “arrows” being aimed at the queen and presuming that she would accept his offering, he decided to write in order “to weigh down the fear of far more dangerous conflict.”70 If this was indeed the case, he did not seriously begin writing until the mid 1580s, for the “dangerous conflict” he referred to was a quarrel with his cousin, Edward de Vere, the earl of Oxford, which occurred in mid-1581. The circumstances leading up to the squabble with Oxford began years earlier; however, the consequences of the disagreement opened a Pandora’s box for Howard that lasted for several years afterward. In 1572 Howard had involved himself with a group of Catholic courtiers who were members of, or had been attached to, the Howard family.71 The patriarch of the group was the earl of Sussex, a staunch supporter of the Howard family. The nucleus of the organization also included Charles Arundell (Howard’s cousin and an emissary for Mary Stuart) and Lord Paget. Due to their religious affiliation, the Catholic gentlemen felt ostracized from the political center at court. By the mid 1570s the men had formed an unstable and dangerous alliance, focusing on grievances against the state in general, and more specifically, objecting to the power that Robert

67 PRO, SP 12/103/53. 68 Conyers Read, "Lord Burghley's Household Accounts," Economic History Review, n. s. 9, no. 2 (1956), 347, 348. Read cites from Cecil Papers, Vol.226. 69 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r. 70 Ibid., fol. 3v. 71 For a discussion of the Elizabethan Catholic situation see John Bossy, “The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism”, in Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, ed. T. H. Aston (New York: Doubleday, 1965). Bossy describes Howard as the “most permanent representative” of courtly Catholicism. 242.

14 Dudley, the earl of Leicester, had amassed at court, and the possibility that Elizabeth might marry him. Around 1576, the earl of Oxford, Howard’s nephew Philip, the earl of Northumberland, and the earl of Arundel joined the alliance, all of whom had a connection to Sussex, supported a possible match with the Duke of Anjou, and held some form of enmity against Leicester.72 Over the next six years the coalition aligned itself in opposition to Leicester by supporting the Anjou marriage, of which Sussex was the principal patron. Howard took advantage of his favorable position with Sussex and the Catholic gentlemen by writing a treatise in favor of a union with Anjou.73 Henry II even wrote to Howard thanking him for his assistance:

I have heard from my ambassador, M. de Mauvissiere, how on every opportunity that can serve to confirm the friendship between the Queen of England and myself, and especially in regard to her marriage according to my desire with my brother the Duke of Anjou, you employ your good offices, and forget nothing which your good natural disposition, desiring of seeing our amity established, can affect. From which I assure you I have received great pleasure and satisfaction, and am most grateful to you, as you deserve, and as I shall always on occasion be glad to show.74

When it became clear, however, that the French would not support the English Catholics if the marriage were to occur, the Sussex group turned toward Spain, a move which Oxford saw as treasonous. Then, in 1579, Leicester’s enemies informed Elizabeth that he had married Lettice Knollys, the widowed countess of Essex and former lady of the Privy Chamber.75 Elizabeth was furious, and Leicester vowed retaliation; in December 1580 he wooed Oxford away from Sussex’s alliance. Oxford openly confessed his Catholic associations to the queen and then accused Howard and his Catholic allies of recusancy and conspiracy. Moreover, Leicester offered Arundell a thousand pounds to implicate Howard specifically, an offer Arundell refused.76 At this point Elizabeth did not consider the matter to be very serious, in light of Howard and Arundell’s support of the French match and her prior knowledge of their religious affiliation. However, Leicester approached the queen again, this time with a list of formal charges against Howard and Arundell. The new charges included not only recusancy and conspiracy, but disrespectful conduct toward Elizabeth. Fearing that his liberty would soon be compromised once again, Howard wrote to Walsingham, protesting his innocence.77 Howard’s fears were well founded. Using Oxford’s information given to Leicester as warrant, Howard and Arundell were arrested for discussing treasonable activities while at a tavern and associating with Jesuit priests.78 Shortly after being taken into custody, Howard again

72 D. C. Peck, Leicester's Commonwealth,16. Peck provides an excellent account of the court intrigues over the Anjou match between 1569 and 1584; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 454. 73 B. L., Harleian MSS 180, “Discourse Concerning the Match Between Queen Elizabeth and duke’ d’Anjou.” 74 CSPF, 252. 75 MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 261. 76 PRO, SP 15/27A/46. 77 PRO, SP 12/150/81. 78 PRO, SP 12/151/42 and 12/151/47. Howard and Arundell were alleged to have met at a tavern in Fleet Street as well as at Northumberland’s home. Howard was accused of supporting the interests of the young king of Scots and of slandering the queen. “He hath said the duke of Guise who was a rare and gallant gentleman should be

15 wrote to Walsingham, attempting to explain his conduct. He insisted that he had never been unfaithful to Elizabeth, and that he only attended mass in order to satisfy his conscience on points of the sacraments.79 Arundell underwent several interrogations, always denying that he and Howard had met on the supposed occasions. Howard went a step further than Arundell in defending himself, not only refuting Oxford’s accusations, but accusing the earl of being an atheist, participating in dangerous practices, attempting to murder Leicester, and committing indecent acts in his bed with Sir Philip Sidney80 In addition, Howard appealed to Burghley, providing the names of several people who could vouch for his conduct.81 The matter reached a climax when Oxford was forced to make an account of his own adulterous exploits in July 1581. Elizabeth forced Oxford to confront Howard and Arundell with his accusations.82 Although there was no formal trial, Howard remained in custody. He wrote to Sir Christopher Hatten, the Lord Chamberlain: “I have lain seven months in prison, and yet am not privy to the least offence either to my Prince or country.”83 Howard believed that Hatton would help him, for he had a reputation with the Catholics as a supporter of their cause and a possible co-religionist.84 Nevertheless, Howard and Arundell remained in custody from December 1580 until July 1581. Once released, Howard wrote to Leicester in an attempt to improve their relationship, but the breach was not healed.85 Leicester continued his mission to break up the Catholic supporters of the Anjou match, especially the men who were close to Sussex. The Catholic gentleman, realizing the French marriage would not occur, continued their work on behalf of Mary Stuart. Significantly, it was during the 1581 dispute that Howard became acquainted with Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador. Mendoza had arrived at the English court in 1578 with orders to maintain civil relations with Queen Elizabeth and support Spanish interests, but was unsuited in temperament for his assigned task. Shunned by Elizabeth’s councilors, Mendoza courted, and was courted by, the English Catholics and supporters of the queen of Scots. By 1581 Mendoza was a confidant of Mary Stuart. Mendoza was also sympathetic to the Howard family, referring to Henry as “a good Catholic” who had faithfully performed his duties to the Church.86 In fact, Mendoza considered him one of the more dedicated Catholics in the realm: “This gentleman is in close connection with all the Catholic gentlemen in the kingdom; for this reason, I have kept up a close intimacy with him.”87 He was also aware of Howard’s problems with Oxford and became personally involved in the situation. In a letter to Philip II in late 1581, Mendoza explained that after Howard and Arundell learned of the queen’s desire to have them arrested the two came to his house, seeking refuge. Mendoza obliged, because he had known Howard “by repute for years past, by means of priests.”88 At that point, the ambassador had been out of favor with the queen for some time and

the man to come to Scotland, who would breech her Majesty for all her wantonness.” Documents 12/151/42-57 detail the account in full. These entries are dated 1581, but contain no month or day. However, they correspond with the events of late 1580 and early 1581. 79 PRO, SP 12/147/6. 80 PRO, SP 12/151/57. 81 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C CVI, fols. 2r-3r; fols. 4r-5v contain a letter to the Queen concerning Oxford. 82 PRO, SP 12/151/69. 83 BL Add. MSS 15891, fol. 119b. Cited in Sir Nicholas Harris, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. (London: Richard Bentley, 1847), 377. 84 MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 103. 85 PRO, SP 12/150/51. 86 CSPS, 145. 87 CSPS, 315. 88 CSPS, 246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 316.

16 was forbidden to appear at court. After Howard’s release in 1581, he became Mendoza’s court contact during his times of absence:

In his gratitude for my kindness in sheltering him, Lord Harry has expressed to me most emphatically that all that he has is at your Majesty’s service, thus showing his acknowledgment for the favor I did him, which is no small novelty for an Englishman to do.89

Over the next few years, Howard provided Mendoza with information and court gossip, especially the issue of the queen’s marriage negotiations with the duke of Alencon. In 1582, Mendoza encouraged the king to grant Howard a pension, for he was considered an “extremely zealous” and valuable contact. Agreeing to Mendoza’s request, Phillip granted Howard a thousand crowns a year for his services.90 Howard and Mendoza continued to correspond until Mary Stuart’s death; and as it was, the contact cost Howard his freedom and nearly his life. Howard began to work on “Dutifull Defence” in earnest toward the end of 1581, but after a brief respite from suspicion, he was forced to stop writing once again: “So likewise after I had put my vessel under sail and doubled the Cape of Good Hope with wind at will, my mast was broken, my tackle torn, and which did most of all discourage me my pilot perished.91 Howard’s language may have been florid, but his analogy directly referenced events in 1583, the year he came closest to imminent danger. Since 1581, Howard had maintained his association not only with Mendoza, but the court Catholics, who, though keeping a low profile, were still attempting to secure their agenda at court. Moreover, Howard and Sussex were especially close.92 Sussex had been a friend to Henry’s late brother, always cautioning the impetuous duke against trusting those who had claimed to be his allies.93 Exceptionally loyal to the queen, Sussex was appointed to the Privy Council in 1571 and was involved in the problems surrounding Mary Stuart from the beginning.94 When Howard found himself in danger toward the end of 1583, Sussex’s death in October compounded his destitution. When Howard lamented that his pilot had perished, he was speaking of Sussex. When he spoke about his broken mast and torn tackle, he was referring to the consequences of the Throckmorton conspiracy. In late 1583, the duke of Guise sponsored a plot to assassinate Elizabeth for the sum of 100,000 francs. When the hired assassin backed out of the venture, Guise and the English Catholics living on the continent joined forces with the papal nuncio in Rome in planning a double invasion of England.95 In September, under Guise’s direction, Charles Paget (Lord Paget’s brother and another emissary for Mary Stuart) arrived in England with instructions to enlist the support of Catholic magnates for a planned invasion of the Sussex coast. The incursion was intended to be two pronged, with the Spanish army landing in Scotland and the French army in England. Their intention was to rescue Mary Stuart, secure toleration for Catholics, and if necessary, depose Elizabeth. Mendoza and a recruit named Francis Throckmorton were given

89 Ibid. 90 CSPS, 315; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 322-23. 91 "Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v. 92 Mendoza noted their friendship in his correspondence with Philip: “He is extremely intimate with Sussex.” CSPS, 246; MacCaffrey, Queen Elizabeth, 317. 93 Sussex and Norfolk had aligned themselves against Leicester during the Hapsburg marriage negotiations, which were inflated to levels of near violence between court factions in the 1560s. 94 MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 118, 130. 95 Ibid., 341; Read, Walsingham, 384.

17 instructions to organize the English Catholics and plan a rising when the two armies arrived.96 Throckmorton had been previously involved with Mary Stuart, working as one of her postmen. For her part, Mary was fully aware of the plan and approved the entire enterprise.97 Despite careful planning, the conspiracy was soon discovered. Due to his frequent visits to the French embassy, Throckmorton quickly aroused the suspicion of Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State and Privy Councilor. Walsingham responded rapidly, and for the next six months his network of agents tracked Throckmorton, who was finally seized in November. Henry Howard was pulled into the group of suspects when, in April 1583, one of Walsingham’s spies reported that the chief agents for the queen of Scots were Throckmorton and Lord Henry Howard.98 Then, on 9 November, Robert Beale, a clerk of the Council, wrote to Walsingham stating that Sir Ralph Sadler and Sir Walter Mildmay, both anti-Catholic privy councilors who objected to the possible Stuart succession, had information about Henry Howard that they wished to relate to Elizabeth. Howard was arrested on December 13. Lord Hunsdon led Howard’s interrogation, in which he was questioned for secretly corresponding with the queen of Scots, asked about his knowledge of and correspondence with Charles Paget, and about his communications with the French ambassador concerning Mary’s plight. Howard was also accused of having received a ring from the Scottish queen as a token of her regard for him, accusations he denied. Howard wrote:

[N]either I spake ever with one Throckmorton (with whose familiar acquaintance I was charged) more than once, and then of nothing otherwise than fell out by chance, without offence to any man alive; neither did I ever receive any ring from the queen of Scots, whereof I was accused.99

The councilors were not convinced. Howard remained in custody as the conspiracy unraveled around him. On 17 December, members of the council met with Howard, and the earl of Northumberland was interrogated about his knowledge of Throckmorton and Lord Paget. The next day one George More was questioned about his knowledge of Throckmorton, Paget, a T. Morgan, the earl of Shrewsbury, Charles Arundel, and Henry Howard in regard to their dealings with the Queen of Scots.100 Howard was once again examined by Lord Hunsdon on 1 January, 1584.101 Moreover, during January, a servant of George More’s confessed that he had delivered letters from Mary to the earl of Arundel and a Catholic nobleman. The servant’s account was confirmed when one of Mary’s letters fell into Walsingham’s hands: “If you can, get access directly or indirectly to Throckmorton or [Lord Henry] Howard, assure them in my name that I

96 Ibid., 341, 342; D. C. Peck, ed., "Introduction to Leicester's Commonwealth," in D. C. Peck, Leicester's Commonwealth, 23. 97 Mary’s letters approving the conspiracy provided the evidence needed to finally expedite her demise and eventual execution in 1587. 98 Read, Walsingham, 381. Fagot’s confession was originally transcribed in French. “Le grande fauteurs de la royne decosse est le Sieur Frocquemorton et le milord Henry Howard et ils ne vienent jamais raporte chose d’icelleque la nuit.” SP Mary Queen of Scots, 12/61. 99 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C VII, fol. 261. Also cited in Nott, 435; BL, Add.MSS.15891, fol. 122b. Also cited in Read, Walsingham, 369. 100 CSPD, 138, 139. 101 BL, Cotton MSS, Caligula C VII, fol. 269.

18 shall never forget their affection for me and their great suffering in my cause.”102 The final blow for Howard came on 12 February, when he was committed to the Tower on suspicion of treason.103 For their part, Lord Paget and Charles Arundel fled to France when they heard of Throckmorton’s arrest. No proof could be found of Howard’s complicity, but he was still imprisoned. In desperation, Howard appealed to Burghley: “I will protest unto your Lord after the close endurance of six months wherein I have been subject to all kinds of search, and trial that may bolt out truth, that I stand most free from guilt in any point whereof I was accused.”104 Howard remained in the Tower until he was finally released in August, 1584, when he was permitted to go to Redgrave, although he remained under close observation for several months. Writing in 1590, Howard recalled his past troubles with candor, and spoke about opinions of him and the motives for his work:

Integrity was then accounted flattery, respect to conscience corruption, plain dealing fraud. The drift of my discourse was wrongfully indicted at a privy council session before it could appear by any outward act, process was served on my arguments before they could be set in readiness to pass and I myself uncited, unexamined, unheard was adjudged guilty by voice of many spiteful jurors.105

Howard then expounded on the particular accusations that had been brought against him. He claimed there were individuals who thought that the topic itself should not have been addressed. More importantly, Howard believed he had been attacked for his supposed participation in conspiracy with the Spanish, and interestingly, that he was composing his defense specifically for Mary Stuart:

Another company accused me of sailing with a side wind of hailing to the north point like a cunning bargeman, when my eye was in the south of offering to saints unknown and seeking under the safe protection of an eagles wings to hatch a cockatrice. When neither the matter nor the manner of my writing gave advantage to the curious inquest of false surmise, the circumstances of the present time were strictly pondered, and if among all queens that either were or ever had been one were found in common jealousy more offensive to the present state then all the rest, the same was made the only object of my speculation.106

Moreover, Howard protested, stating that he felt the interrogations he underwent were unfounded, and that those accusing him had no proof of his guilt. In conclusion, he accepted that, considering the circumstances, it was advantageous for him to stop writing, “cast anchor in a

102 Read, Walsingham, 389. Read cites Labanoff, Lettres de Marie Stuart, 5/424. 103 PRO, SP 12/168/14; DNB, s.v. Henry Howard 29; Nott, 435. There is a discrepancy between authors as to whether Howard was placed in the Tower or the Fleet. The DNB and Nott both state that Howard was incarcerated in the Fleet. However, the entry for his arrest in the Calendar of State papers states that he was removed to the Tower and is cited as such in this work. 104 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 32v. 105 "Dutifull Defence," fol. 3v. 106 Ibid., fol. 4r. A cockatrice, or basilisk, was a serpent like creature whose breath and glance were fatal. The term was often applied to people or used as a reference of reproach for a woman. Howard uses the word with a touch of irony, not referring to a woman, but a conspiracy revolving around a woman reproached by the English regime. OED s.v., cockatrice.

19 quiet harbor,” and attend less controversial pursuits.107 Nevertheless, Howard continued to be harassed for the remainder of the decade and expressed his frustration to the queen: “I know not where to place myself, without displacing my desires nor where to pick up any better comfort than in remaining altogether comfortless.”108 Howard may have despaired over his situation, but his resilience never abated. He continued his attempts to appease the Queen and convince her of his loyalty. Howard was vehement that he had never transgressed his loyalty to Queen Elizabeth. Nevertheless, intentionally or out of desperation, he often teetered on the brink of treason by involving himself in the dangerous world that combined religion and politics. However, he was aware of the risk he was taking. In his letters to Philip II, Mendoza related Howard’s concerns, and revealed something of his relationship with the Spanish:

He [Howard] assures me that, seeing the many enemies he has in England, he is greatly desirous of rendering service to your Majesty, in order that, if he is unfortunate enough to be obliged to leave this country before he sees the queen of Scotland in the position he desires, your Majesty may receive him.109

For men disillusioned by the lack of tolerance for English Catholics, Mary Stuart’s declining position, and Elizabeth’s unsuccessful marriage negotiations, treason was worth the possible peril it could bring if it secured religious acceptance and political success. After his release in 1584, Howard remained at liberty, living in fragile peace for the remainder of the 1580’s. Elizabeth revoked his pension, and he therefore lived in relative poverty between Redgrave, St. Albans and Greenwich, often living in a small room provided by the Lord Admiral Howard, which he referred to as “his little cell in Greenwich.”110 Despite his freedom, Howard did not escape occasional harassment, expressing his exasperation in the dedication letter: “My desks and coffers have been six times broken up, my papers rifled and sundry books of notes conveyed away, which required longer time in gathering then was used for their dispatch, yet this collection of arguments in defense of women’s lawful interest was often left behind.” He provided examples, relating that the manuscript had been stolen from him at St. Albans by an “unlearned pursuivant,” but was miraculously returned to him by a stranger since his name was on the front.111 By sheer will Howard continued to write, applying his hand to “Dutiful Defense” and continuing to pursue Elizabeth’s favor, but to no avail. In addition to intermittent persecution, Howard again found himself indirectly involved in another conspiracy, the Babington plot. In 1586, a seminary priest named John Ballard met with Mendoza in France, informing the exiled ambassador that a plan was evolving among the English Catholics to assassinate the queen. After Mendoza’s support was secured, Anthony Babington, a wealthy, young Catholic gentleman, was enlisted to help raise support for the uprising, which would free Mary Stuart from captivity after Elizabeth was dead. The design expanded through July, but Walsingham had intercepted several letters from Mary Stuart, which openly discussed the intrigue. Babington was captured on 14 August, and the affair ultimately gave Walsingham the evidence he needed to justify Mary’s execution. Howard was never

107 Ibid., fol. 4v. 108 Ibid., fol. 5v. 109 CSPS, 316. 110 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus, C VI, fol. 28. 111 "Dutifull Defence," fol. 7r.

20 questioned or named as an official conspirator, but in a letter to Philip II, Mendoza mentioned Howard as one of the Catholic gentleman prepared to raise troops.112 It is unlikely that Howard would have been deeply involved in a plan supporting a sovereign’s murder. Throughout his life, he consistently discouraged open resistance that called for such extreme measures. In a letter written later in life, Howard spoke of his counsel to Queen Mary during her time as a prisoner: “I did ever advise her to win time . . . to discourage practice with patience . . . so I fled those giddy councilors of ill seasoned colors, which did not stick, out of the fervency of ambition, to put her life in the hazard for the satisfaction of their vast desires.”113 In the 1590s, Howard cautioned the earl of Essex, urging him to refrain from active rebellion against Elizabeth. In 1587, Howard volunteered his services against the Spanish Armada in order to prove his loyalty to the queen and to the State: “My purpose is to give no less evident and certain proof of my untamed loyalty upon the sea by hazard of my life, than I have already done of my obedience upon land, by conformity to orders.”114 His offers of assistance were not accepted, and Howard continued to live a meager existence. However, the inability to discharge his martial duty to the queen did not stop him from fulfilling his obligation to her in written form. Howard returned to his project, finally finishing “Dutifull Defence” at some point in the late 1580s. By that time Howard was once again optimistic, not only satisfied with his attempt to refute Elizabeth’s detractors, but convinced that it would give him the advantage necessary to regain her favor. Considering the events of Howard’s life during the 1570s and 1580s, it is remarkable that he was able to compose a work as exhaustive as “Dutifull Defence.” Commenting on his labor Howard wrote: “The work is tedious and able to discourage one that hath more idle time to spare.”115 Regardless of his situation, Howard took his work seriously. His education gave him the knowledge base he needed to construct a defense of female regiment, and when he was able to write, he approached the work with the attitude of a scholar and a nobleman. Nevertheless, Howard was accused of flattery and writing “Dutifull Defence” for no other reason than to regain his patronage. The search for favor was indeed one of his motives for writing, but further analysis will reveal that Howard’s motives may be more credible than once believed.

112 CSPS, 604. 113 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 138. 114 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 38r. 115 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 23v.

21 CHAPTER 2

MOTIVES

If Henry Howard’s character is difficult to define, one aspect of his personality has been repeatedly emphasized—that Howard was a mere flatterer and had no other motive for writing “Dutifull Defence” than to win the favor of the queen and regain her patronage. Howard has been condemned in writing by contemporary associates and modern scholars for his attempts to woo courtiers and influence men and women who were close to the queen.116 However, Howard’s motives may not have been as one-dimensional as they have been accused of being. Howard had an intense interest in genuine scholarship and attempted to compose as thorough and stylish a work as possible. Additionally, evidence from the manuscripts reveals that Howard’s work may have received more attention than previously believed. Therefore, this chapter will discuss Howard’s motivations for writing “Dutifull Defence,” including his search for favor and patronage, his production of the physical manuscripts, who the recipients were and why he chose them, his genuine belief in women’s abilities, and his fear of popular resistance. Furthermore, a look at Howard’s writing style and use of sources demonstrates his application of scholarship in trying to prove a woman’s right to rule. The most common accusation against Howard’s motives for writing is that he composed his defense solely for the purpose of seeking patronage and a position at court. Howard never denied that he hoped to benefit from his work and admitted to the fact in the dedication letter. He articulated in several ways his desire to be restored to the queen’s favor: “If hope of compassing your Majesty’s desired favor be so nearly suited and so evenly prized with the means by which we gain favor of Almighty God,” and “by removing nearer to the beams of your encouragement, I bear green leaves with the hope that fruits will follow.”117 Howard’s desire to gain the favor of the queen was certainly not unique, especially since he was a member of one of the highest- ranking families in England.118 Due to the lack of a strong external financial market or a paid bureaucratic institution to encourage personal advancement, men in Tudor society found it necessary to seek out personal and financial assistance from well-endowed and well-placed sponsors.119 Men, and women, took full advantage of marriage contracts and the placement of their children to strengthen and forge their associations with other families or to increase wealth and status.120 Consolidation of royal power under Henry VII and Henry VIII forced members of the nobility and upper gentry to rely

116In 1595, Lady Francis Bacon said of Howard, “he pretends courtesy [while] working perilously.” Birch’s Memoirs, 227; Modern sources that condemn Howard’s motives include the DNB, which states Howard sought Elizabeth’s favor by “grossly flattering” her; In his book, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, Conyers Read refers to Howard as a “coiled serpent.” Conyers Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960), 536; L. L. Peck describes Howard’s writing a series of “sycophantic letters” and “pedantic tracts.” Northampton, 10. 117 Ibid., fol.5r.-v. 118 L.L. Peck, "The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),164. 119 MacCaffrey, Patronage and Politics, 21. 120 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 260.

22 on the crown for the financial and political resources essential to maintaining their positions.121 Men often sought out individuals who were close to the monarch and could therefore bring their petitions to royal attention.122 Before his downfall, Howard relied on the favor of his brother, since Norfolk was the highest ranking peer in England and was in frequent contact with Elizabeth. Thereafter, he sought patronage from personal friends and relatives close to the queen—Sussex and Essex, or men who had strong political influence at court—Burghley and his son Robert Cecil. For Howard, the second son of an aristocratic family, to seek patronage would have been expected. His generation was the third to serve the monarchy in England, and he was not the only member of the nobility to spend considerable time trying to maintain his personal court connections.123 Indeed, given his education, Howard had the qualifications necessary to serve the court. His decision to remain at Cambridge as a lecturer was prudent in light of his family’s previous history; had his brother not been involved with conspiracy in the early 1570s, Howard’s move to take his place at court may not have been so disastrous. However, although not fully accepted by Elizabeth, Howard successfully remained on the fringes at court, maintaining contact with men close to the queen, as evidenced by the recipients of his written work. During his career as a scholar and writer, Howard chose to use author publication (text production under the author’s personal direction) in the scribal medium as the main method for the duplication of his work.124 In a letter addressed to Burghley in 1589, Howard remarked on his dissatisfaction with the scriveners he was forced to use in a particular location. After writing a treatise on prayer dedicated to the Lord Chancellor, Howard complained: “Your Lord I hope will excuse the bad writing of the book, for that is my own, being forced to take this extraordinary labor by the ignorance of the scriveners of this town, who in a Latin copy for the most part make as many faults as points.”125 Despite his occasional criticism of scribes, dozens of Howard’s works were circulated in manuscript form during his career, including “Dutiful Defense.”126 Howard was not alone in his preference for the scrivener; members of the aristocracy and upper gentry often chose handwritten replication over print in order to distribute their writing. Scribal texts were produced only upon demand and were regarded as the best way of providing monographs for a pre-chosen clientele, or when a work was intended to attract a particular type of reader.127 To this point, Howard never intended for “Dutifull Defence” to be read by the common man. His sense of hierarchy and strong belief in the virtue of knowledge and education prevented any desire for the general population to voice an opinion on his work. He expressed from his early years that he preferred to write for individuals rather than for many people; and despite his quest for favor, personally, he was an austere and private person. For instance, Howard declared: “I was never apt by nature to crave acquaintance with a private

121 Ibid., 271. 122 MacCaffrey, Patronage and Politics, 24. 123 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 271. 124 Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)., 47. Love describes important criteria for identifying author publication as the “presence of signed dedications or epistles to particular persons.” All of the early copies of “Dutifull Defence” contain dedications. Only one of Howard’s works was published as a printed book, A Defensative against the Poyson of Supposed Prophecies (1583). 125 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 30r. 126 For listings of Howard’s written works see Nott, 468-470, and Peck, Northampton, 12. 127 Love, Scribal Publication., 47, 133. Love indicates that cost was not necessarily a factor in choosing a scrivener or printer as the cost and remuneration may have been similar.127.

23 person without urgent cause, much less a random multitude.”128 He addressed men whose opinions he felt were important —members of the aristocracy and statesmen. For a man born into the nobility, living in poverty, and under continuous suspicion of conspiracy and treason, Howard used the power of his pen to regain his political and social standing at court. Subsequently, each copy of “Dutifull Defence” made during Howard’s lifetime was carefully prepared for presentation to friends or those from whom he thought he could benefit in his quest for preferment. There are seven identifiable manuscripts that Howard had prepared during or after 1590, when he presented his defense to Queen Elizabeth (see table 1). Each manuscript was bound, often in purple velvet, with gilded edges on the leaves, with each folio page outlined in double sets of red-ruled frames. The first leaf contained the title, and the original recipient’s coat of arms was placed on the verso, followed by a personal dedication, written in Latin and personally signed by Howard.129 His handwriting was also present in the marginalia of the text in most of the copies. The attention to detail in the preparation of the manuscripts suggests that Howard was personally involved in their design and preparation.130 All of the original monographs, those produced between 1590 and 1600, were presented to members of the Privy Council or men who were close to the queen. Moreover, they were men with whom Howard had some form of personal or political connection. Pepys Library 2191 belonged to Lord Burghley and contained Howard’s autograph additions, as well as annotations in Burghley’s hand. As High Lord Treasurer, and the man whose opinion Elizabeth trusted, Howard sought Burghley’s approval more than any other member of council. Despite the precarious circumstances Howard found himself in during the 1570s and 80s, he tried to maintain regular contact with Burghley and his son Robert. Howard regularly wrote to Burghley, thanking him for his support, ensuring him of his loyalty, or pleading for deference and favor.131 Burghley was not always expedient in his responses, but he never abandoned the beleaguered noble. In March 1589, Howard dedicated a treatise on prayer to the chancellor, and he was no doubt one of the first to receive a copy of “Dutifull Defence.”132 The arms of Sir George Carey appear in Lansdowne 813. The marginal notes and Latin verses addressed to Carey are in Howard’s own hand. From the heraldry, it can be determined that the manuscript dates before 1596, when Carey was created Lord Hunsdon. The text is written in a single scribal hand. Cary served the queen for his entire career, culminating with his appointment as Lord Chamberlain in 1596. He had been connected to the Scottish issues as a consultant on the contemplated marriage between the duke of Norfolk and Mary queen of Scots. Additionally, Howard and Cary were cousins as well as related by marriage. Howard maintained that Carey was a

128 Linda Levy Peck, "The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee," in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 163. 129 H. R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts 1558-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 101. Harleian 6257 is an exception. Instead of a coat of arms, a seal appears on the first folio, which will be discussed below. 130 Ibid. 131 Howard’s letters to Lord Burghley are found in BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI. 132 Henry Howard, “A Work on the Trinity”(1589). Howard mentions the work in a letter written to Burghely in March 1589. B.L. Cotton MSS, C VI.

Table 1: Complete Manuscripts Manuscript Presented To Location

Pepy’s Library 2191 Lord Burghley Magdalene College, Cambridge Additional MSS 24652 Sir Thomas Heneage British Library, London Lansdowne 813 Sir George Carey British Library, London FMs 826 The Earl of Essex Houghton Library, Harvard Bodl. MSS 903 Sir John Stanhope Bodleian Library, Oxford Harleian 6257 Sir Robert Cotton British Library, London Case MS fJ 5452.634 Newberry Library, Chicago MSS Ogden 16 William Trumbull University College, London Note: Peter Beal offers the most complete listing of copies of “Dutiful Defence” in, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 215.

personal friend, and after his difficulties with the Earl of Oxford, Howard cited Carey in a letter as one of the persons who could vouch for his conduct, since they were on intimate terms.133 Harvard 826 was presented to Robert Deveraux, the second Earl of Essex. The dedication to the queen is in a scribal hand, but the Latin verses are in Howard’s own hand. Moreover, the signature is unique, “Henry Howward,” with the first “w” made to resemble a Greek omega. Howard’s relationship with Essex was the most intricate and involved of any of the men who received a copy of “Dutiful Defense.” Essex first appeared at court in 1577, the year Howard was commissioned to compose the rebuttal; and after a turbulent rise through the ranks of courtiers, Essex became the favorite of the queen in the 1590s. Howard capitalized on the fact that the dazzling, young gentleman was not only a friend, but also his cousin.134 While Essex was in Ireland or at sea, Howard managed the favorite’s correspondence with the court and served as an intermediary between Essex and his followers. When the earl was created Earl Marshal in 1597, Howard wrote a treatise supporting his position in which he used many of the same rhetorical methods he had used in “Dutifull Defense.”135 Essex also came to rely on Howard and his writing skills. For example, Howard helped Essex compose letters to the queen and councilors when Elizabeth forbade him from appearing at court. Essex expressed his gratitude for Howard’s assistance, writing that Howard “laboured above my strength . . . that I might rightly judge,” or, again writing, “my inward friendship with my Lord H. Howard doth make me know his many virtues.”136 As an outcast himself, Howard would certainly have been able to understand the earl’s situation, and his devotion to family assured Essex of a loyal supporter. Oxford Bodleian 903 contains the arms of Sir John Stanhope. The manuscript is bound in velvet and has marginal notes in Howard’s hand. The dedication is signed by Howard as well.

133 BL, Cotton MSS, Titus C VI, fol. 5v. 134 See L. L. Peck, Northampton, for a discussion on Howard’s relationship with Essex. 135 Ibid., 14. In addition to official records, Howard relied on ancient, biblical and medieval historical accounts when writing “A brief discourse on the right of giving arms.” 136 Paul J. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, 1585-1597 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 311. Hammer cites BL, Harleian MSS, 286, fol. 268r. Hammer provides an excellent portrait of the relationship between Howard and Essex; Linda Levy Peck, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (London: Allen and Unwin, 1988). 15. Peck cites BL, Add. MSS, 4123, fol. 95v.

25 The bulk of the text is the work of one scribe, however, another scribe is responsible for folios 86r-96v. Neither hand is the same as the scribe who wrote the previous copies discussed.137 In 1590 Stanhope was made Master of the Posts and appointed to the Council of the North, as well as being appointed Treasurer of the Chamber in 1596. Howard was in regular contact with Stanhope during the 1590s, acting as an intermediary on Essex’s behalf. After Howard was promoted to the council in 1603, he and Stanhope served together on the commission that discussed a union between England and Scotland. Unlike Burghley, Cary, and Essex, Howard did not seek Stanhope’s favor, but most likely considered him a friend and worthy recipient. Ogden 16 is more unusual in its ownership. The name of William Trumbull appears on the manuscript, as well as gilt monogram of Lord Brougham and Vaux. It is bound in purple velvet with gilded edges and the dedication, marginal additions, and corrections are in Howard’s own hand. The title page was written by a scribe identified by as the “Feathery Scribe,” who was active between the 1620s and the 1640s.138 The body of the work was copied by the same scribe who copied Lansdowne 813, and since the body of the text was written in the 1590s, as determined by Lansdowne 813, the title page of the manuscript must have been added at a later date. William Trumbull was a court messenger during the reign of James I and was raised to the position of diplomat at the court of the Archduke of Austria. No direct, written communication between Howard and Trumbull exists, though it can be assumed that they would have had some contact.139 Lord Braugham and Vaux was Lord Chancellor during the 1850s. He also helped establish the non-denominational University College of London in 1828, where the manuscript is now housed. How he came to own a copy of “Dutifull Defence” is not known. Harleian 6257 is perhaps the most interesting of all the copies of “Dutifull Defence.” As noted on the foot of the title page, Howard presented the manuscript to Sir Robert Cotton in 1613, though the copy was most likely produced much earlier.140 As in the other complete copies, it contains Howard’s autograph and annotations as well as being set in double ruled form. However, the script is clearly more formal than that in the manuscripts previously discussed and does not contain a coat of arms. Instead, an illustration of a crown is set over a rose or thistle with a lion below. The words “Quid Ultra” emerge from the lion’s mouth. The illustration has never been identified, but it could possibly be some form of motto. The copy presented to Queen Elizabeth remains undiscovered. Nevertheless, the entry for 6257 in the Fontes Harlieani lists the queen as an owner of the manuscript and contains the note, “Queen’s signature formerly f. 26b [the last page of the dedication letter], now excised.”141 It was possible that the copy was distributed and then returned to Howard since the inscription to Cotton is “ex dono.” However,

137 Peter Beal, In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 215. 138 Ibid., 58. 139 Interestingly, Trumbull was an accomplished lute player and wrote a book of music for the lute. While Howard was still teaching at Cambridge in the late 1560’s, he requested that a master lute player be sent from London, as he desired to learn the instrument. Letter from Lord Henry Howard to Mr. Hicks. BL, Lansdowne MSS, 109, fol. 51. 140 Beal, 215. The manuscript was removed from the Cotton library when it was loaned to one Ralph Starkey, who still held the manuscript in 1621; C. G. C. Tite, "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library," in Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, ed. C. J. Wright (London: The British Library, 1997), 276, 470. 141 C. E. Wright, Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts Preserved in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1972), 143. Also present on the manuscript is the name Boothe [Nathanial], who presumably owned the manuscript in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

26 the entries in Fontes Hareiani should be treated with caution.142 Though the possibility is intriguing, there are no other references indicating the manuscript belonged to Queen Elizabeth, and further research is required before original ownership can be verified. The dedication in Harleian 6257 was also copied by the same scribe who wrote Lansdowne 813 and Ogden 16, although the body of the work was written in another hand. In addition, the title of the manuscript read “written unto Queen Elizabeth by the Right Honorable Henry Howard, late Earl of Northampton,” indicating that the page was replaced after 1614. The original owner was not identified, but the notes on the final page of the manuscript were in the same hand present in Cambridge University Library Add. MS 9267, “The Prayer used in the King’s Army after the Battle of Kineton [Edgehill], 1642.”143 The reproduction of portions of “Dutiful Defence” in at least four manuscripts after Howard’s death reveal that there was still interest in his argument, or at least curiosity in his scholarship, after the gynecocracy debate was not longer relevant to English politics (see table 2). The combination of evidence supports the conclusion that shallow ambition alone did not motivate Howard to write “Dutifull Defence.” His education and experience prevented him writing a simple work of flattery without any academic merit. Moreover, the extensive number of sources and extreme length of the work would have been unnecessary if adulation had been Howard’s only purpose. Howard went to great lengths to prove his arguments, utilizing as many sources as he could and taking advantage of his education and the connections available to him as a Cambridge don. Very little is known about Howard’s personal relationships with women. He never married and had no known children. It was rumored that as a young man he wanted to enter the priesthood and possibly aspired to become Archbishop of York.144 Later in life, he was known as “the Dominican” and always dressed in black. Nevertheless, Howard was surrounded by women, and had three well-educated sisters, with whom he corresponded regularly. Younger sons of the nobility often had close relationships with their sisters since they were frequently alienated from the eldest brother and heir due to

142 Tite, "Sir Robert Cotton." 276, n. 94, 470.

143 Beal, In Praise of Scribes, 215. 144 Nott, 430. Nott does not cite any other source for this rumor, except Strype’s Life of Grindal.

27 Table 2: Partial Manuscripts or manuscripts under a different title

Manuscript Owner as listed in Location Page Numbers manuscript

Trinity College MS Trinity College, ff. 1r-54r 731 Dublin Harleian MS 7021 British Library ff. 65r-122r Additional MS Cambridge 9267, University Library No. 7 Additional MS Edward Umfreville British Library 12513 (d. 1786)

Note: The bookplate of BL MS 12513 is from the Strawberry Hill Library of Horace Walpole, fourth Earl of Oxford (1717-97).

the custom of primogeniture.145 As a young man, Howard was under the guardianship of his aunt, the Countess of Richmond, and during his adult life he lived by the graciousness of three queens. From these women Howard received housing, income, and support, though they did not provide him with what he desired most, a position at court. Interestingly, however, Howard relied on women at court to provide him with information, which he passed on to Mendoza, an invaluable asset in a turbulent and dangerous political atmosphere. The shunned ambassador even made mention of Howard’s relationships with the women at court in a letter to Philip II: “[Howard] is friendly with the ladies of the privy chamber who tell him exactly what passes indoors.”146 Howard had benefited from his relationships with women, which may have influenced his opinions of them. Convincing evidence that Howard believed in a woman’s ability to understand complex information comes from the book he wrote for his sister Catherine, “A Treatise on Natural Philosophy.”147 Debate over the necessity and extent of education a woman should receive, and had the ability to understand, was frequent in the sixteenth-century. Usually, girls obtained an education in order to prepare them for marriage.148 Most objections to providing a woman with a classical education were not based on a woman’s mental ability to learn, but rather, that an education was not necessary for her proper vocation in life. Moreover, because women were considered incapable of self-control, many writers believed that endowing a woman with knowledge would lead her into sin, as it did with Eve.149 The most widely read, and most widely accepted, early modern book on the education of women was Juan Luis Vives’ De Institutione Feminae Christianae (1523 or 1524), written for Mary Tudor while Catherine of Aragon was

145 Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1977), 86, 87. 146 CSPS, 246. 147 Oxford Bodleian, MSS, 616. 148 Ruth Kelso, Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), 59. Kelso provides a detailed account of what Renaissance society expected of women. 149 Ibid., 60, 62.

28 still queen. Vives believed that a woman’s education should be selective: “The study of wisdom, which instructs their manners, and informs their living, and teaches them the way of good and holy life.”150 The study of grammar, logic, history, and the sciences was a man’s calling. Richard Mulcaster, the head of the Merchant Taylor’s School of London, repeated the restrictions on a woman’s education when he wrote his 1581 textbook on education, Positions. Though he advocated a limited education for most girls, he stressed their studies were to prepare them for marriage. Most women were not employed in public affairs; therefore, their studies were only accessory to their training as a wife and homemaker.151 Princesses and queens were allowed a more generous education so they could “discharge their duty”, but they were exceptions, not to be followed by women of lower standing. At Catherine’s request, Howard wrote a very personal work for his sister, a textbook on natural philosophy, which included sections on matter, motion, and the “causes efficient” of nature. Howard’s willingness to present his sister with information traditionally reserved for men, shows that he assumed she could comprehend the subject. In the short dedication letter, Howard expressed his belief that Catherine had every capability to learn and utilize her education. He wanted her to read for “the attaining of perfect knowledge” and related that he wished to “encourage you sister in this commenced travail you shall understand that even women have not been mute among such tropes of philosophers.” He went on to declare that it was God who “has inspired this earnest and intense desire of knowledge into your breast.” If she had the ability to understand, she had the right to learn what she wanted. Years later in “Dutifull Defence” Howard reiterated his belief in a woman’s natural ability and capacity to reason when refuting those who said a woman could not rule because she was mentally unable to do so. Interestingly, one of Howard’s main concerns in defending Elizabeth and her position as monarch was the possibility of armed resistance against her, even though he had previously been accused of conspiracy against the queen. He expressed at the beginning of the dedication letter in “Dutifull Defence” that the nobleman who asked him to write was also concerned with the possibility of rebellion. Indeed, fear of resistance was one of the primary reasons for composing the defense, “least wanton wits that use to support and dally with all baits of innovation that swim like flies upon the running streams might either swallow suddenly the secret hook before the danger were described or slyly take advantage of the better part.”152 In general, Protestants did not support physical violence against someone whom they perceived to be an ungodly ruler. They supported political obedience and remained “fundamentally stable” in their views against active resistance. A tyrannical ruler was seen as a punishment from God, and was to be endured and learned from, but not deposed.153 With the accession of Mary I, the situation changed and more radical leaders altered their position on duty and obedience.154 However, Knox and

150 Watson, 54. 151 Richard Mulcaster, Positions wherin those primitive circumstances be examined, which are necessary for the training of Children, either for skill in their book, or health in their bodie (1581). Mulcaster wrote: “Naturally, the male is more worthy and politically he is more employed, and therefore that side claims this education as first framed for their use and most properly belonging to their kind.” Sig.Rii. 152 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r. 153 Greaves, “Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting Perspectives.” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (1982): 23-34, 23. John Calvin declared this position in a letter concerning an inquiry from Knox about resistance: “the government of a woman badly adjusted to the country is like the government of a tyrant, which has to be borne till God put an end to it.” Cited in Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 159. 154 Greaves, “Political Obedience,” 23. Greaves outlines the particular beliefs of several Protestant and reformist groups.

29 Goodman supported the idea that an individual’s ultimate obedience was to God, and not to any earthly ruler who chose to ignore the laws in Scripture. Submitting to a tyrannical ruler was, in essence, rebellion against God.155 In their opinion, Mary I ruled in direct defiance of God’s law because she was a woman, and a Catholic; therefore, both Knox and Goodman directly challenged Mary’s legitimacy as a ruler, calling for her deposition, and possible execution. After Elizabeth’s accession, Goodman eventually recanted his anti-gynecocracy views, declaring that his objection was to Mary and not the current Protestant queen.156 However, Knox never repealed his condemnation of women rulers, standing firm on his belief that a female monarch was anathema to God’s law. First Blast was published in 1558, and in 1559 Knox declared that Elizabeth would be deemed unworthy to rule if she did not conform to the tenets of Scripture and called for her execution if she embraced Catholicism.157 Though it appeared that Howard’s effort to defend the queen was unnecessary by the 1570s, there was still a great deal of uncertainty revolving around the unmarried queen, whom both Protestants and Catholics viewed as having compromised religious issues. Indeed, in 1579, one John Flower’s views on resistance were seen as threatening enough to warrant questioning by the Privy Council.158 Howard was personally offended by Goodman’s public recantation of his railings against the queen and wrote: “I heard of some which having vented their undutiful conceits against the ground of your Majesty’s authority in printed sheets; recanted them upon compunction of the heart in public audience.”159 Moreover, Howard was concerned over the effect Knox’s work might still have in England:

I saw those Satyrs, which undertook both to cool and kindle with one blast, and feared the hearts of these unfaithful soldiers which followed the colors of their captain but in mutiny. There was great cause of doubt lest the vulgar multitude, which hath ears to hear and eyes to see, but no discretion to judge, might as well incline in matters of this moment as they rose in cockfight to the weaker side.160

Farther into his discussion, Howard directly refuted those who believed a ruler could be deposed: “But it belongs not to the calling of a subject of this day to refuse those rulers who God himself by ordinary means hath warranted true.”161 Though there were no popular uprisings against Elizabeth during her reign, Howard’s concern was not unfounded. Reprints of First Blast continued to be published in England in the latter decades of the century. Additionally, it was common knowledge that rumors claiming Edward VI was still alive circulated regularly, and during the 1570s and 80s there were several pretenders who claimed to be the king.162 In light of his own turbulent history, Howard was well aware of the possible consequences when men rallied around a cause against the crown, and wanted to ensure Elizabeth that he would not support rebellion.

155 Ibid., 26-7. 156 DNB s.v. Christopher Goodman; Scalingi, 69. Goodman recanted in front of an ecclesiastical commission. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid., 26. 159 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2v. Howard referred to Goodman a “poison altogether unworthy either of protection or excuse.” Fol. 19r. 160 Ibid., fol. 3r. 161 Ibid., fol. 135v. 162 Levin, 52.

30 The dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s and the subsequent dispersal of many of the monastic libraries opened up the number of sources available to men interested in the historical past.163 Furthermore, the expansion of the printing, bookbinding, and bookselling trade increased the number of volumes available, in addition to facilitating the exchange of knowledge on historical subjects. One of the results of this enhanced awareness of history was the formation of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries in 1586. Members of the society, a group of elite, literate men, collected books and regularly discussed topics in dinner meetings held on Fridays in London. Howard was a member of the Society of Antiquaries, as were Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir Robert Cotton, both recipients of copies of “Dutifull Defence.”164 Most of these men, including Howard, had private libraries of their own, making an abundance of reference material available for someone wanting to use historical sources. Howard took full advantage of his personal knowledge, court connections, and the physical sources surrounding him when writing “Dutifull Defence.” What sources Howard owned himself during the decades of the 1570s and 80s is not known, except that he still owned several books from his time as a student and lecturer at Cambridge.165 However, with good court connections and friends who shared an interest in collecting, he most likely had an ample selection of sources to refer to while writing. In fact, it was Howard’s extensive use of history that set him apart from other writers on the gynecocracy debate. Within the body of “Dutifull Defence, Howard cited over one-hundred different histories, ranging from well-known sources, like Bede, Tacitus, Suetonius, Herodotus, Hector Boethius, and Polydore Virgil, to the less circulated works of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), drawing examples of women who held some form of authority from all of them. For Scriptural references, it is probable that Howard used the Vulgate, and he cited any verses used in Latin. A sampling of Howard’s citations indicates that objectively, he cited his sources correctly.166 For example, Howard cites Bede’s The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 3:6, claiming that Oswald became king through the matrilineal line. Bede’s history read: “Now Oswald was the nephew of Edwin through his sister Acha, and it was fitting that so great a predecessor should have so worthy a kinsman to inherit both his religion and his kingdom.”167 In comparison Howard wrote: “King Oswald attained to a principality in the northern parts by the right of his mother, who was a sister to King Edwin.”168 However, Howard often read the histories, and at times Scripture, subjectively, reading into them inferences that were not actually in the source. In relating King Cyrus’s story in Herodotus Histories, he stated that Mandane was heir by right to succeed Astyages.169 Herodotus did not speak of Mandane’s particular right to inherit, but only referred

163 May McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), vii. 164 Ibid., 59, 77, 155. In 1578, Sir Thomas Heneage and his brother Michael were appointed as keepers of the queen’s records in the Tower of London. 165 Nicolas Barker, "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton," Bodleian Library Record 13, no. 5 (1990), 376-78. Howard mentions in the text that he used Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, though he does not say if it was in Greek, or translated into Latin. For a treatment of Latin commentaries of Aristotle, see Charles H. Lohr, “Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle.” Jill Kraye and M.W.F. Stone, eds. Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2000), 24-40. 166 Howard’s major sources had been translated and utilized for centuries. There would have been no benefit in citing them inaccurately. 167 Bede, Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1969), 3:6. 168 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 41r. 169 Ibid., fol. 39v.

31 to her as an heir. “Suppose, when he [Astyages] dies that the tyranny devolves on to Mandane.”170 Howard converted the supposition into a right, and though he may not have been technically incorrect in his reading, he relied on assumption to make his point. When addressing a reference to the Queen of Sheba in Luke 11:31, the state that, “the text itself declared that she ruled by the law of nature.” Howard made the assumption that the Scripture inferred that her rule was natural and presumed that she was a sole monarch171 Howard cited extensively from the works of the Church Fathers, which were readily available in the early modern period. Although he often cited the same Christian authors as Knox, Goodman, and Buchanan had, he tended to utilize them differently. It seemed clear to most writers in the period that Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, Basil, Jerome and Chrysostom held negative views toward women and supported the idea of their inherent inferiority and subjection. However, Howard used their works selectively, by disagreeing with them, or focusing on more obscure sections. At the beginning of his argument on Eve’s position at creation, Howard simply said that Chrysostom was wrong: “It seemed good to his divine providence to create a woman also, not as a servant or subject, as Chrysostom notes, for then she would have born some badge of servitude as other creatures have done.”172 Instead of citing Augustine’s pronouncements against Eve in On the Trinity, Howard only commented on the theologian’s views: “St. Augustine will not admit that any kind of subjection was known either to nature or to sin, so long as our first parents preserved in obedience to the law of God according to this institution.”173 Howard was trying to defend an argument and looked for any evidence to support his case, even if it meant expanding on the meaning of a passage or the conclusions that could be drawn from a small amount of information. Howard treated Aristotle, the most widely cited author for supporting evidence against female authority, in the same manner as the Patristic writers. He generally ignored Aristotle’s comments on the physiology of women, focusing instead on the political writings and pulling out obscure references. For example, Howard cited Aristotle’s Politics, book 5, a section discussing factions. In the passage several examples of disputes over heiresses are mentioned, but the women’s right to possess their inheritance was not the point of the discussion. However, Howard inferred that since Aristotle was discussing female heirs, they could possess their inheritance.174 Howard may have been correct in his assumption, but he definitely stretched the analogy to fit his conclusion. Howard’s goal was not to misrepresent the sources, but to show how they could be approached differently. He expressed that for many years the works of the Church Fathers and great philosophers had been misinterpreted; therefore, historical inaccuracy or citing a source incorrectly would not have helped him support his argument.175 Early modern interpretation was subjective, often creative, and in that respect, Howard was a man of the times. He was also aware that the stakes were high. In the dedication letter, he mentioned his use of citations: “Neither have I wrested any passage of the Scripture from the proper sense, or abused any rare example by the sleight of doubleness, nor suppressed any kind of proof that may seem to make for our

170 Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1998), 1:109. 171 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 32r. 172 Ibid., fol. 33v. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid., 35v.; Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, 23 vols., vol. 21 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 5:3: 2-6. 175 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 34v.

32 adversaries sufficiency.”176 As Howard wrote the dedication letter after the defense, he believed his interpretation of the evidence was correct, therefore, he had held to the standard he set for himself.

176 Ibid., fol. 22v.

33 CHAPTER 3

THE NATURAL LAW

As a prolific writer and lecturer on rhetoric and civil law, Howard knew how to format an argument and manipulate words. His knowledge of history, philosophy, and familiarity with the arguments against female rule provided him with ample material to refute his opponents. He began his defense by establishing a base with which to work from, natural law. This chapter will discuss Howard’s theory of natural law and how he applied it to the defense of female rulers through philosophy, history and a rejection of traditional thought about the nature of women. Works with “defense” in the title were common and often signified a piece that glorified feminine virtues without discussing any change of hierarchal status. Howard’s use of the term in “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Weomen” was two-fold. He not only wrote a literary apology of a woman’s character, but also built a legal defense of her status in society, her right to inherit titles, and her right to rule as a monarch. Moreover, Howard’s construction of the title revealed his motives and opinion on the position he supported. In his dedication letter, Howard expressed that it was his duty to construct an answer in response to the detractors of women; and because those men who objected to a queen ruling in her own right equated feminine monarchy with tyranny, and therefore unlawful in the eyes of God, Howard seized upon the analogy by presenting his arguments as a trial on the lawfulness of female rulers.177 To this point, Howard organized his treatise into three books, each discussing separate, but ultimately related topics: natural, civil, and sacred law. The first book, on natural law, contained the most complex theory, and in it Howard presented a brief on what he believed the ius naturale to be and how he intended to use it as a foundation for the remainder of his case. Vital to Howard’s argument was the revival of Thomist belief that had spread through French and Spanish universities in the sixteenth century. Revived by the Dominicans and expounded by the Jesuits from the 1560’s, they transformed Thomas Aquinas’ interpretation of law into a systematic view of what political organization was and ought to be.178 Aquinas had adopted a four part theory of law: the lex aeterna, by which God acted upon creation; the lex divina, God’s revelation to man through the Scriptures; the lex naturalis, or ius naturale, the implantation of God’s spirit or consciousness in man so that they could understand his will; and the lex humana, lex civilis or ius positivum, those laws that men enacted for themselves to govern the states they had organized.179 In turn, the Thomists synthesized Aquinas’ laws into two forms. First, they combined the idea of positive human law with the law of nature, making natural law the moral framework wherein all human laws must operate. To this point, the aim of all human law was to conform to the higher law of God, which was already “inscribed” in all men through their conscience.180 Secondly, they connected natural law to the will of God. The ius naturale,

177 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 2r. 178 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols., vol. 2: The Age of the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978),135. 179 Ibid., 148. Aquinas discussed his theories on law in the Summa Theologica: XC-XCV. 180 Ibid., 149; Donald R. Kelley, "Law," in The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 261.

34 therefore, was a dual essence because it came both from God and reasonable man. Consequently, Jesuit scholars expanded natural law theory in the mid century to include the nascent concept of the status naturae, or original state of nature, an idea that went beyond Seneca’s idea of the golden age of man. The assertion, one later seized upon by theorists like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, proposed a time before political organization when no man ruled over another, and society lived in a state of equality and independence.181 The Dominican and Jesuit interpretation contested what they saw as the “Lutheran heresies,” propagated by Lutheran radicals, picked up by Calvinist theorists, and eventually claimed by reforming writers like John Knox, Christopher Goodman, and George Buchanan.182 The Catholic Church viewed political organization as a product of God’s conscious imprint on reasonable man, based on the general knowledge of His will. In contrast, the “Lutheran” theory claimed that God ordained all political organization according to the tenets of Scripture, effectively separating the formation of political society from the bounds of natural law. This being the case, according to radical Protestant theory, it was lawful to oppose an ungodly ruler; for, if the ruler was supposed to be divinely chosen and rule according to Scriptural standards, tyranny proved a ruler’s ungodliness. Dominican and Jesuit scholars had taken an interest in how Protestant doctrine affected the authority of the Catholic Church. However, for men who equated a ruling queen with an act of tyranny, resistance became an important factor in their rhetoric against female authority. Knox, Goodman, and Buchanan all claimed that God ordained, earthly rulers could be removed by force if they transgressed the sacred law. Furthermore, Knox and Goodman supported the specific removal of all female rulers, who clearly defied God’s order laid down at creation. For them, all law was derived directly from Scripture, and natural law provided the physical evidence that God’s law had created women incapable of ruling. Of all the attacks of female regiment, Knox provided the clearest declaration that a women ruler was “repugnant to nature.”183 For Knox, natural law was evidence of Sacred law, and therefore secondary to the laws in Scripture. However, he did provide numerous examples of nature proved women inferior. He declared that women were, by nature, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be un-constant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.”184 Knox espoused a two-fold definition of natural law; first, law made evident by simply observing a woman’s natural, physical and emotional attributes, and secondly law as the “revealed will and perfect ordinance of God,” that absolutely forbade a woman to rule over a man.185 As evidence, Knox invoked Aristotle’s Politics and sections of the Roman Digest, associating them with the sacred laws of God as laid down at

181 Skinner,136, 155, 156. Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican, wrote that, “before men congregated together”, in commonwealths, “no one man was superior of all the others.” Vitoria’s Relectiones, was published posthumously. Luis de Molina used the phrase status naturae and in statu naturae, and although Molina’s first book was not published until after “Dutifull Defence” was written, he had lectured on the subject of natural law between 1577 and 1582 in Portugal. 182 The opinions propagated by radical thinkers in the sixteenth century, were not supported by a majority of the populous. Richard Greaves provides a discussion of the major religious affiliations views on political organization and resistance against governments in his article, “Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting Perspectives,” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (1982) 23-34. 183 Knox, 9r. 184 Ibid., 10r. 185 Ibid., 13r.; Marvin A. Breslow, ed., The Political Writings of John Knox (London: The Associated University Press, 1985), 45; Susan Flech, "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women," The Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995), 805; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 161; Jordan, “Women’s Rule,” 433.

35 creation.186 Moreover, Knox associated natural law with the Roman law, but not specifically with the ius gentium, or law of nations addressed in book one of the Digests. Buchanan asserted a female character similar to that ascribed by Knox. He stated in his History of Scotland that “greatness of mind was never required in this sex; it is true, women have other proper virtues, but as for his, it was always reckoned among virile, not female endowments; besides, by how much the more they are obnoxious to commotions, passions and other efforts of mind, by reason of imbecility of their nature.”187 Goodman declared that a woman’s rule was a “monster in nature, and disorder amongst men.”188 As a Cambridge scholar, an instructor in civil law, and a Catholic, Howard very likely had knowledge of the theories presented by the Dominicans in Spain and France.189 By assimilating contemporary thought and scholarship with his traditional academic experience, he could present a far more multifaceted argument on female rule than the radical, Protestant writers. Combining Aquinas’ position on natural law, as stated in the Summa Theologica, and early Thomist political theory, Howard presented an intricate and thorough definition of natural law.190 He separated natural law into two “kinds,” following the theories of those he deemed to be the “learned civilians”—mainly Ulpian and Aquinas. The first kind was instinct, which was “common unto men with beasts.” This branch of natural law included all the faculties necessary to ensure life in all living beings: procreation, the nurturing of the young, and self-defense. On this point, Howard derived his thought directly from the Roman Digests.191 The second branch of natural law consisted of the capacities “proper unto men that are endowed with the gift of reason,” and it was on the basis of reason that he formed the remainder of his argument.192 Howard based his second branch of natural law on reason, the attribute by which men resembled God and were different from beasts. His premise, that God endowed man with reason, consisting of the principles of honesty and right, at the time of creation, was similar to those proposed by Dominican and Jesuit scholars.193 Howard backed his assertion that reason was the basis of natural law by citing Chrysostom, Origen, Tertullian, Hillary, and St. Paul. He then set himself firmly in the tradition of civil law by stating that the natural law of reason was also the ius gentium, the law of nations; and without it, no government could function, nor could people be able to fulfill the basic tenets of society, mainly “obedience to magistrates, love to parents, care for our country, provision for our families, constancy in keeping promise, abstinence from doing wrong; and whatsoever is understood without instruction and either observed or

186 Knox cites the Digest, 50.17.2; 3.1.1; 16.1pr.; 3.1.pr.; and 1.5.9. 187 Buchanan, History of Scotland, 406. 188 Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to be Obeyd, sig, D2. 189 L. L. Peck points out that “secret” knowledge was particularly important to Howard, including Catholic and Jesuit writings. “Mentality,” 162. 190 Skinner, 152. Skinner notes that the traditional view of civil lawyers was that the law of nations formed a part of the law of nature. As will be seen, Howard did not depart from this opinion, but expanded it in order to prove his argument that women were allowed to rule. 191 Digest 1:1:3. “Natural Law is that which nature has taught to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human race, but applies to all creatures which originate in the air, or the earth, and in the sea. Hence arises the union of the male and the female which we designate marriage; and hence are derived the procreation and education of children.” 192 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 29r. 193 Ibid. Howard wrote: The law of nature “consists wholly upon principles of honesty and right, which God himself engraved with his holy finger in the heart of man at the first creation of humanity.”

36 acknowledged without enforcement by necessity.”194 Based on his assertion of how the law of nations was a part of the law of nature and imprinted in man at the time of creation, Howard insisted that countries must base all decrees and laws on natural law, which invokes integrity and right, or they are not valid. Using the analogy of a civil trial Howard wrote, “this is the court in which all pleas concerning titles both by men and women must be tried.”195 The highest judge of the law is man’s right reason, engrained by God and, therefore, the only precedent to which man can appeal. It is interesting that Howard’s discussion on the tenets of the law of nations resembles John Leslie’s account in A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France (1569). Although Leslie served as an ambassador for the queen of Scots during the early 1570s and both men served concurrent sentences for their respective involvement in the Ridolfi plot, it is not known if the two men had any personal contact through Elizabeth’s court.196 Nevertheless, Howard knew of Leslie, briefly referred to him in his dedication letter, and most likely had a copy of Leslie’s work—the only other Catholic defense. Both men derived their theories from the Digest, and believed there were two kinds of natural law, and that as the law of nations was derived from human reason, it was necessary to maintain civil order, but they cited from separate sections of the work.197 Howard and Leslie used similar phrasing when describing the tenets of the law of nations, and it is possible that Howard used Leslie’s work as a source without citing him. Leslie staunchly defended Mary Stuart and continued to have problems with the court after her death in 1586. If Howard used his work, it is feasible that he consciously left out any direct citations to Leslie that Elizabeth’s Protestant court could view as contentious.198 As important as defining what natural law was, Howard also had to expound on the traditions that placed women in their position of permanent submission to men. Almost all theory concerning the makeup and character of women in the early modern period was based on Aristotle’s views of female anatomy and biological makeup. Aristotelian physiology had determined that women were deformed males who functioned at a lower metabolic level than men, and were therefore, colder, wetter, and more humid than the male species.199 After the translation of Aristotle’s ideas about women into English during the Middle Ages, the perceptions of cold, wet, and humid were correlated with inefficiency and weakness. Due to their physical imperfection, women were also regarded as lacking intelligence and judgment and were considered emotionally inconsistent. Additionally, the medieval combination of Aristotelian thought and Christian exegesis on the order of creation and the consequences of the fall reinforced the concept of female inferiority. During the Renaissance, these views on women remained dominant; and because classical morality was inexplicably bound to scriptural censure

194 Ibid., fol. 29v. 195 Ibid. 196 Leslie’s involvement in the Ridolfi plot is covered in the CSP, Relating to Scotland, 348- 353; DNB, s.v. “John Leslie.” After his release from prison in 1572, Leslie fled to the continent and continued his work on behalf of Mary Stuart. 197 Leslie, A Defence, sig. q7. Similar to Howard, Leslie’s first kind of natural law was that which was, “proper and appertaining as well to other living things as to man.” 198 Within the text, Howard made no direct references to John Knox either, even when he is meticulous about citing Goodman, Buchanan, Bodin and all of the patristic sources. Elizabeth was indignant with Knox for what he had written in First Blast. Goodman recanted his views and Buchanan was dealing mainly with Scotland. For Howard to leave out references to the men who would easily offend the queen, would not be surprising. 199 Aristotle, Generation of Animals, trans. A.L. Peck (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 737a; Sommerville, 10.

37 by centuries of interpreting one in the light of the other, a woman’s inadequacy compared to man’s remained the standard argument for female subjection.200 Written detractions of women relied on the combination of Aristotelian interpretation of natural law and Scriptural condemnation to form arguments against female authority. In the fifteenth century, John Fortesque, an influential lawyer in the court of Henry VI, drew on the Thomistic-Aristolelian tradition of natural law to write on the proper order of succession to the English throne.201 He then added Scriptural commands—God’s declaration of natural law in Genesis—to exclude women from inheriting the crown. Similar arguments were posited in the sixteenth century when the debate over female regiment became a reality. Political theorists like Jean Bodin, The Six Books of a Commonweale, and George Buchanan, History of Scotland, as well as Protestant reformers like John Calvin followed the same line of thinking, integrating the ideas of natural, inherent inferiority with Scriptural pronouncements in Genesis that decreed women to be subject to men at creation. Bodin posited the standard list of female vices in his declaration against female regiment: “Gynecocracy is squarely against the laws of nature that give men strength, the prudence, the arms, and the power to command and take away from women [their authority].”202 All of them agreed that, as a rule, women should not rule. However, Calvin was willing to accept that under certain conditions, a woman could hold the office of monarch, but only as an exception or as a punishment from God, and was in no way to intended to set a precedent. Calvin made his occasional acceptance of a queen regnant clear in a response to an inquiry from Knox about the legality of a female sovereign: “the government of a woman badly adjusted to the country is like a government of a tyrant, which has to be borne till God put an end to it.”203 Knox was forced to agree with Calvin that a few exceptions to God’s prohibition on female authority had existed, Deborah for example, but disagreed that the current queens qualified, and it was left to him to make the most inclusive combination of Aristotelian physiology and biblical censure. According to Knox, a woman’s inabilities were evident in every facet of nature, and absolutely proved by Scripture. A woman’s inferior attributes were simply evidence of God’s malediction on Eve in Genesis. Regardless of the reasoning, each author reached the same conclusion, the female sex was substandard compared to the male, as made evident by nature, verified by Scripture, and should therefore remain in subjection to men. Most defenders of women played to the inherited tradition of natural inferiority and failed to present substantial theories of natural law. By doing so, they did not ultimately challenge the concept of female inequality, but simply presented them as patronized lesser beings only worthy of praise if successfully conforming to their God-given role. Although Vives had advocated the education of certain high-born women, he still stressed that they were not suited to be rulers because a woman was “a frail thing, and of weak discretion, and may lightly be deceived, which thing our first mother Eve has shown.”204 Howard presented a more complex interpretation of classical sources than either the detractors or supporters of female authority. Instead of following the standard arguments based on the physical attributes of women, Howard disregarded traditional Aristotelian biology as a factor in establishing the female position. Howard turned to Plato’s concept that in essence, there

200 Sommerville, 10,12,13. 201 Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 43, 44. 202 Jean Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606, ed. Kenneth D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), 753. 203 Cited in Richard Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 159. 204 Cited in Scalingi, 59.

38 was no difference in gender. Citing the Republic, Howard summarized Plato’s argument that women should receive training in the same disciplines as men “for the better service of the commonwealth.” Howard wrote: “He tells that neither men nor women have any office proper or peculiar to the sex alone but that women are as capable of all offices as men though in comparison they be reckoned the weaker.”205 He continued by boldly stating that with regard to women holding positions of authority, Aristotle had almost always been misinterpreted by medieval writers due to his “obscure and dark manner in delivering his mind.”206 Indeed, when speaking on Aristotle’s prohibition of female authority, Howard claimed that the philosopher did not present a universal rule, but spoke of a specific woman, Olympia, who was “unworthy for some personal defects or that sought to rule by wicked and unlawful means.”207 Aristotle’s objection was not based on gender, but performance. Howard concluded that the opinions of philosophers had a place, but they did not carry the same weight as God’s providence acting through natural law. He then refuted one of the main objections to female authority, that women were mentally weaker than men. Howard linked the idea of equality in essence with equality in mind, offering a progressive view of women for the early modern period, as opposed to detractors who had insisted that women would not be able to govern effectively or efficiently because of their inherent weaknesses. Rebutting this contention, Howard maintained that physical or mental inability could not be a determining factor in establishing inheritance. Minority males were weaker than adult men or women, and did not have the same cognitive ability, but there was no question that they could inherit a title and had the right to rule. Howard believed that women were as mentally capable as men because they both came from God and “the griffin of scions of every tree carries in itself the virtue of that root from whence it was taken.”208 Using Eve as his example, Howard declared that God created Eve out of flesh, a superior substance to the “gross clot of clay” from which Adam came, and she was created “no less holy according to the sacred image of God represented in the faculties of understanding will and memory than Adam. She was endowed with a reasonable soul.”209 Therefore, the standard of judgment with regards to inherited titles had to be the same for both men and women. At this point in his theory, Howard made his first challenge to the detractors by pointing out that they attempted to use the civil law to prove that women were unfit to rule, and confronted them by declaring, “therefore whosoever will deprive a lawful owner of less matters than inheritance of kingdoms must produce sound evidence.”210 He then contested their conclusions and in doing so claimed equality under the law for women by stating:

In trial of this question there is no doubt but women have a voice because according to that principle of the civil law Quod omnes tangit etc., that which concerns all must be approved in like sort by all before it take effect. If women speak not in print against themselves, they can receive no hurt and though they do, it only binds their person without any kind of prejudice to their posterity.211

205 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 34v. 206 Ibid. 207 Ibid., fol. 36r. Howard was referring to Aristotle’s comments on Queen Olympia, the mother of Alexander the Great. 208 Ibid., fol. 37r. 209 Ibid. 210 Ibid., fol. 29v. 211 Ibid.

Howard continued to support his argument by asserting the detractor’s claim of inability to rule by a woman’s “natural prescript” (basing the argument on physical and emotional attributes) was invalid unless all rulers fell under the same standard. Furthermore, if men were judged upon the same facets as women, no one would be eligible to rule. He followed by claiming that he could prove quite simply that, according to the standards laid out in the debate, many women were more temperate, virtuous, and provident than men. Howard cited several examples of biblical and secular women, for example, Abigail and Elizabeth. Additionally, he used the writings of Chrysostom and St. Paul to support his assertions.212 Howard finished by stressing that before the fall, women were as perfect as men. After the fall, God punished Eve for her offence, but this punishment did not affect any of the physical or emotional qualities that would have bearing on her ability to perform tasks perceived solely as masculine. He also emphasized that if God had created women so imperfect in mind and body, the detractor’s standards of judgment would not apply, for society would have to judge women according to the proportion of their faculties. He then concluded his argument on the principle that:

Women shall be tried with men at one bar, examined by one Judge and condemned by one law. We shall all stand before the tribunal seat of God to give account of our actions, good and bad, as we received so we shall deliver . . . therefore I conclude that to both sexes one reverence is due. The virtues are equal, the rewards ought to be equal and like condemnation belongs to both sides if in Christ there be no difference.213

In declaring women as equal, his statement could be seen as revolutionary compared to traditional written opinion. After defining natural law, Howard indulged those attacking female rule on the basis of natural law. In doing so, Howard once again picked up on contemporary Thomist theory by espousing an original state of nature theory, countering the premise that from creation women were declared to be in subjection to men. He argued that at creation and after, there was no political organization and “neither men nor women exercised any such authority as in our days is due to kings and magistrates.”214 If no established rules for the parameters of authority existed, there could be no precedent with regards to women. Hence, the arguments presented by Knox, Goodman, and other detractors that forbade women from holding authority over men for all time were invalid: “Therefore, the more absurd their opinion that would have women to be barred by the law of nature from a kind of honor which the law of nature has neither understood nor warranted to any man.”215 Howard continued his discussion on a state of nature before political organization for several paragraphs. Once Howard established his position on women, he moved into the second part of his case, proving female inheritance through historical example. He began by incorporating his previous arguments into a definition of natural law: “The law of nature is an

212 Ibid., fol. 30r. 213 Ibid. 214 Ibid., fol. 31r. The law of nature was present in its purest form when political prerogatives were unknown. 215 Ibid.

40 universal motion and impression of honesty engraved by God himself in the hearts of all persons that are endowed with reason in whatsoever clime they have been bred or in whatsoever country they be nourished.”216 Next, Howard argued that by proving female succession in the past it could be demonstrated that a reigning queen was neither ungodly nor unnatural. Knox, Goodman, and Buchanan used examples of women whom society viewed as ungodly and immoral, focusing on negative portrayals of classical and biblical women like Jezebel and Athalia, applying the misconduct of a few women to all, and concluding that they clearly exemplified why a woman should not rule. In response, Howard accused them of using only evidence that suited them and ignoring the rest, and of misinterpreting the evidence by being “blinded by prejudice conceit, or dim sighted by some natural defect of (sic), or abused by false spectacles think that [their evidence] to be the law of nature.”217 Howard chose to ignore biblical examples in this section of his work and instead focused on contemporary histories to set a precedent, citing nearly sixty instances on over twenty folio pages of women who had inherited titles or crowns and had acted upon the authority granted with the titles. Beginning with examples in Roman Britain and then working chronologically through England and Scotland, Howard moved into Western Christendom and provided examples from Germany, Bohemia, Poland, Austria, Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Zealand, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in the former Christian east—Cyprus and Jerusalem. Furthermore, Howard used and cited thirty different histories including Bede, Tacitus, Polydore Virgil, Herodotus, Justinian, Strabo, Hector Boethius, and Pope Pius II, as well as contemporary histories from each country he discussed, including Buchanan’s History of Scotland. For the most part, Howard offered no analysis in the pages of examples, except for interjecting maledictions against Knox, Buchanan, and Bodin. The exception was France, where Howard decided to provide a discussion on the Salic Law, a directive that prohibited the crown to pass on to or through a woman. Howard provided no references to historical work in this section, only mentioning Jean Froissart, a French historian who declared in his chronicle of the Hundred Years’ War that, “France is a country of to great price and value to become subject to a woman’s rule.”218 Howard asserted that the documents that generated the Salic Law were forged and invalid, and his point had some merit. The debate over woman’s inheritance in France occurred in the early fourteenth century, when the country faced the same succession situation as England in the sixteenth.219 However, the legislation creating the Salic Law was set ex post facto later in the century, even though there were no actual documents available to set a legal precedent. Nevertheless, the law was enacted, enforced and remained in effect in the sixteenth century.220 Directly challenging the Salic Law, Howard emphasized that women had ruled in France during a royal minority or in the absence of the king (though he provided no examples), a point which in itself invalidated the “fictions” of the supposed law. France kept the law out of fear of foreign influence if a female ruler married a foreigner, very much the same argument used when Mary Tudor was considering the hand of Philip II. Stressing a reference from his

216 Ibid., fol. 38v. 217 Ibid., fol. 39r. 218 Ibid., fol. 48r. 219 For a discussion of the formation of the Salic Law, see Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War, 2 vols., vol 1(London: Faber and Faber, 1990), 103-107. 220 In 1561, the French chancellor, Michel de l’Hopital told an Estates General that their highest duty had been carried out in 1328 when they elected a new king. James B. Collins, From Tribes to Nation: The Making of France, 500-1799 (London: Thomson Learning Inc., 2002), 152.

41 earlier discussion, Howard asserted that a law made against women without their concession was void:

To conclude, if the Salic Law be forged as I have cause to think, it makes nothing for the prejudice of women’s claims. If otherwise authentic, I answer with Gregory [illegible] that Viri errant gin (sic) hanc sanxerunt legem st (sic) idcirco contra mulieres lata est, because none but men had any voice in making this law, therefore it was made against women.221

Howard had good reason to refute the Salic Law. According to him, the English monarch still held the legal title to the crown of France, and in Elizabeth’s case he wanted to “justify her title to that kingdom by sufficient exceptions to unjust pretence.” Once again, Howard felt it was his duty to defend his queen. Howard’s remarks concerning the French were more direct than those on the other countries from which he provided examples. At one point, he accused the French of duplicity, by refusing to assist other states when needed, while at the same time requesting aid for their own pursuits, and of forcefully trying to annex land through marriages.222 During the Anjou marriage negotiations, Howard had wholeheartedly backed the French in their pursuit of Elizabeth’s hand. When the English Catholics realized that the French would not support them if the marriage did occur, and the two nations failed to reach a suitable compromise, Howard and other court Catholics felt betrayed. Additionally, the French were involved in the plot against Elizabeth’s life for which Howard was incarcerated in the Tower in 1583. Howard marked his evident disillusion with his words: “I mean not at this instant to deliver what I think because as things stand now and titles are pretended out of foreign parts our countrymen have cause to wish ten bars between the female heirs and their desires instead of one.”223 By the time he finished writing “Dutifull Defence,” he was no friend to the French. After finishing his lengthy section on historical examples of female rulers, Howard considered his evidence complete and commenced with addressing specific objections to a woman ruler. Although not addressing the accusations of female physical and emotional inferiority in the first part of the book on natural law, Howard chose to do so in the final sections of the first book. He contested thirteen objections, ranging from women’s treachery, cowardliness, and inability to control their emotions to their lack of military skills, each of which appeared in one or more of the works of Knox, Goodman, Bodin, and Buchanan.224 In every case, Howard’s style was consistent. He stated the objection, made particular comments against the protestation, and then discussed the cases of individual women in reference to their supposed failure of character and inferiority. In general, he reached a similar conclusion for each objection. When women were entitled to a position of authority, men desired to usurp their power out of greed, insecurity, or ambition: “Their care was to advance themselves by right or wrong to fish in waters troubled with civil strife and ever to complain against the sex when they sought most greedily to bring the person to an utter overthrow.” 225 Therefore, men found it convenient and necessary to declare women inferior in all qualities to justify their suppression. Furthermore, in

221 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 48v. 222 Ibid., fol. 48r.-48v. 223 Ibid., fol. 47v. 224 The objections begin on fol., 55r. and continue through fol., 124v., the remainder of the book. 225 Ibid., 62v.

42 each case of supposed inferiority, there were women who clearly proved otherwise. In the first section of historical examples, Howard relied on European histories, using them to set a precedent for female monarchs. Throughout his discussion on a woman’s physical and mental inabilities, Howard turned to biblical women, citing them as models of moral and emotional strength, while still relying on European examples to set a precedent for competent female rulers. Additionally, Howard described numerous men who notoriously lacked the virtues that women were supposedly lacking. For example, in response to the accusation that women were unable to control themselves in difficult situations: “I will not speak of many other tyrants in the state of Rome that made themselves away; to prevent the danger coming.”226 Howard claimed he could provide cases of incompetent, cowardly, and immoral men for every woman the libelers chose to use. His style was consistent for the remainder of the book, except for a brief section in which he revealed his personal anger toward George Buchanan. In the second objection, that the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s would not have objected to woman’s rule if it had not been against natural law, Howard made an interesting and significant digression from his argument, revealing a very personal side of his character and the intensity of his emotional bond to his family. In The History of Scotland Buchanan slighted Howard’s family in several chapters of the book. Buchanan wrote of Howard’s father:

Thomas Howard (sic), Earl of Surrey, had gone off with great renown for that victory over the Scots, if he had used his success with moderation; but being a man , almost drunk with the happiness of his prosperous success, and little mindful of the instability of human affairs, he made his household servants (as the English custom is) to wear a badge on their left arms, which was a white lion (his own arms) on the top of a red one, and rending him with paws: God almighty did seem to punish this his insolent ambition, for there were, in a manner, none of his posterity, of either side, but died in great disgrace and ignominy.227

Buchanan went on to discuss the Ridolfi plot and elaborated in detail on the duke of Norfolk’s life and involvement in the conspiracy, stating that in his military actions he had “proven no valor.”228 Howard, clearly offended by Buchanan’s statements, took the opportunity to defend his family’s honor while discussing the Scotsman’s insults on Henry VIII and the battle at Flodden Field, in which his grandfather had participated. Howard wrote: “Not content with this presumption against an anointed king, he let fly in fury at his peers and chiefly at the duke of Norfolk (whom both for honor and for duty’s sake I am bound in those matters to defend) accusing him of pride and haughtiness after his service done at Flodden.”229 He committed the next several folio pages to praise his family’s service to the monarchy, declaring at one point that he desired Buchanan’s rotten bones to putrefy.230 Within these pages, there was no discussion of women or any form of argument for female rule. Howard did not write his digression solely to convince the queen of his family’s merits. Throughout his life, Howard maintained loyalty and commitment to the Howard house, with an especially personal sense of dedication to his father.

226 Ibid., 85r. 227 George Buchanan, The History of Scotland (Written in Latin, by George Buchanan. Faithfully rendered into English. J. Fraser, 1689), 13:27. 228 Ibid., 19: 239- 41. Buchanan also stresses Norfolk’s possible marriage to the queen of Scots. 229 “Dutifill Defence,” fols. 72v.- 73r. 230 Ibid., 74r.

43 When writing to Elizabeth, he included references to his father, hoping that she would remember the renewed popularity of the earl’s writing by citing one of his final poems: “My father in his last thing before his end, ‘Domin [sic] est michi [sic] quod humiliasti me.’” 231 Later in life, Howard constructed elaborate tombs for his father and mother in Suffolk, in which he had both of his parents reinterred.232 After addressing each objection, Howard finished his discussion on natural law by reviewing his arguments and assuming that he had overwhelmed his opponents with the amount of evidence he presented, concluding that because women were equal under natural law, they could not be barred from positions of authority. Howard chose to begin his defense of female rulers with a discussion on natural law. He sought to create what he believed was a solid base on which his argument could rest. Rejecting traditional thought concerning the nature of women, Howard abandoned Aristotle in favor of claiming Plato’s essence of equality in gender. He used his extensive knowledge of history to posit a non-traditional view that enabled a woman the right to inherit by civil law.

231 Ibid., fols. 6r-v.; Cited in Sessions, 386. 232 Sessions, 216; L. L. Peck, “Mentality,” 162. In the latter half of the sixteenth century a “cult” formed around the memory of Surrey and his writing.

44 CHAPTER 4

THE CIVIL LAW

Within the context of the gynecocracy debate, the civil law played a minor, but important role for the men writing for and against women’s rule. The men who chose to use the civil law to form part of their argument interpreted it to fit the conclusions they were trying to achieve by focusing on particular sections of the Corpus, while disregarding statutes that might harm their line of reasoning. Absence of legal training did not preclude judgment and certainty of opinion, opening the door for rebuttal from Howard, whose legal education and experience as an instructor were the best qualifications he possessed to defend female inheritance of the crown. This chapter will discuss the origins of the civil law and how sixteenth-century legal theorists interpreted it in light of early modern culture; how the detractors of female regiment used the civil law to oppose female authority; and how Howard launched his rebuttal by interpreting the civil law by a more progressive standard—claiming that Roman law was not always applicable in contemporary circumstances. The second book in “Dutifull Defence,” based upon the ius civile, was the shortest, yet most precisely written of the three. Howard accused the detractors of manipulating the law to corroborate their opinions, calling their interpretations, “false and frivolous objections which have been most unjustly countenanced with deceitful colors.”233 He then set out to prove that the legislation in the ius civie did not bar women from the position of monarch. In similar style to the opening of the first book, he began his appeal to the law by using a dualistic play on words. Knox had associated the civil decrees against women to Scriptural sanction. Howard played to their correlation with Scripture by using it to appeal to the civil law: “Even as Festus said to Paul Cesarem appelasti ad Caesarem ibis, to Caesar you have made this appeal and to Caesar you shall go. So say we to those that since they have appealed to the civil court, by the civil law their action shall be determined.”234 Paul made an appeal to go to the man who controlled Rome, Howard appealed to the laws that restrained Romans to prove a woman was released from traditional opinions concerning inheritance. The body of civil law used in sixteenth-century England was directly translated from Roman law as it stood at the beginning of the millennium. During the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian set out to restore and codify the entirety of ancient Roman law, as part of an attempt to re-establish imperial authority in the west. His attempt resulted in a compilation of three parts, each with its own peculiar features.235 The Digest was the most important collection, consisting of fifty books, which represented the law of the classical period, and were primarily concerned with private law and principles of jurisprudence. The second part of Justinian’s collection, the Code, contained imperial legislation and had full legal validity before codification. The Institutes, a text-book for law students, was drawn form an earlier, second-century textbook and concerned itself with theory. In the twelfth century medieval jurists added the last section, a

233 “Dutifull Defence,” fol., 125r. 234 Ibid., fol., 126r. Acts 25: 10-12. 235 Robert Feenstra, "Law," in The Legacy of Rome, ed. Richard Jenkyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 400.

45 grouping of Justinian’s original enactments known as the Novellae. The arrangement officially became known as the Corpus iuris civilis in the later Middle Ages.236 The chief concern of the Corpus was private law that dealt with family, succession, property, obligations, and personal status. The civil law was expanded in the twelfth century, becoming central to the European legal tradition by providing both the terminology and conceptual basis for customary law. In addition, the Institutes and the Digest formed a significant part of the legal curriculum in European universities. By the fifteenth century, the Roman legal tradition had evolved, displaying a more modern perspective, having been written down and separated into the civil, canon and customary law. Significantly, when Howard studied Roman law in the 1550s, the Corpus had been subjected to several generations of interpretation, a fact Howard drew upon in his arguments.237 On the continent, jurists understood the merits of using the civil law. However, England had a strong tradition of common law, or “law of the land,” based heavily on the customary and traditional rights of landowners, rather than legislation based on theoretical debate. Enshrined by the signing of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, the strength of the common law had eclipsed the civil law.238 Thereafter, the civil law was generally confined to the few courts that relied on knowledge of the Corpus, where it was used as a standard of comparison for rulings, rather than being incorporated as a part of the customary law—mainly the ecclesiastical courts, the High Court of Admiralty and the Court of Chivalry.239 For women living in Tudor England, the most important court, the Court of Chancery, provided an important source of legal relief for women after it evolved into a separate royal court by the mid- sixteenth century. Chancery administered a body of substantive law known as equity, a significant factor for women seeking justice in cases of patrimony, inheritance and the settling of a spouse’s estate.240 Under common law, certain rights were permitted to spinsters and widows, though married women were led to believe that they had no proprietary rights separate from their husbands. When a woman married, her spouse gained ownership of everything she owned. In addition, daughters who had not received their inheritance had no appeal for relief under the common law. However, in the sixteenth century, the Court of Chancery had established equitable rights for married women over property and for young women who sought their inheritances, and was sympathetic to heiresses.241 For men trained in the civil law, Chancery provided the opportunity to apply their knowledge. The equitable principles on which the Chancellor based his decisions were formed from the civil law; therefore, civilians could contribute more competent counsel than common lawyers.242 The purpose of a trial in Chancery

236 Ibid., 400, 401; Shephard, Gender and Authority, 133. 237 Donald R. Kelley, “Law,” The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450- 1700, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 66, 67. 238 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 133. 239 Ibid. 240 Maria L. Cioni, "The Elizabethan Court of Chancery and Women's Rights," in Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American Friends, ed. Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),159; Sommerville, Sex and Subjection, 98. 241 Cioni, 165; Sommerville, 98; Cioni credits the Court of Chancery for directly improving the status of propertied women in Elizabethan England. 182. 242 Brian P. Levack, The Civil Lawyers in England, 1603-1641: A Political Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 28. Levack notes that nearly half of the Masters in Chancery who conducted hearings and reported to the Chancellor were civilians. 27.

46 was to discover the facts of a case, the same procedure used in civil law courts, rather than determining the validity of a single legal issue, the practice of the common law courts.243 Howard mentioned Knox, Goodman, Buchanan, and Bodin by name in his section on civil law. However, he focused his challenge on Knox, for out of all the detractors of female regiment, Knox appealed directly to the civil law as a major part of his argument. Knox had no formal legal training, but accuracy in interpretation of the law was not as important to him as the effect the implication had on his readers.244 He cited the Digest, reminding his readers that within its legislation, “Women are removed from all civil and public office, so they neither may be judged, neither yet may they occupy the place of the magistrate, neither yet may they be speakers for others.”245 In this instant, Knox did not differentiate between Roman law and the law of nature, believing that they were both written as they were because of a woman’s inherent inferiorities.246 He then appealed to Aristotle, picking up his traditional concept of the female: “Wherever woman bear dominion there must needs the people be disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess and vanity.”247 Knox did not make a distinction between the public roles of women and private inheritance. He viewed the public law as setting precedent for the private law; if women could not be judges, out of necessity, they could not hold offices higher than a judge, therefore excluding them from monarchy.248 Jean Bodin also cited the Digest, but went no further in his argument stating, “Now as for the order and degree of women, I meddle not with it.”249 He was more concerned with how the civil law related to the whole of the population than with a particular section of it. Goodman did not directly tie the ideas of civil law and female rule together, but focused more on religion and natural law. Of the defenders with whom Howard was familiar—Alymer, Leslie and Jewell— none went into the civil law in detail. Jewell’s work was not concerned with the civil courts; Alymer and Leslie both denied that the civil law held any relevance in the English system; and Leslie contradicted Howard’s notion that the law of nature could be associated with the Roman law.250 Though Howard was not involved with the Court of Chancery, as a lecturer on civil law, he used similar principles, mainly equity and use of legal theory, to argue for the right of women to inherit the throne: “These are the reasons of the civil text it self, so firmly grounded upon equity and right as neither malice can resist, or envy weaken, nor craft satisfy, if by partiality of humors or corruptions of governors any other course were (holden) taken before Justinian’s time.”251 His argument was not without precedent. Early modern theorists on civil law equated a daughter’s right to inherit from her father as part of natural law. Therefore, despite the actual written law, daughters should not be excluded from their inheritance.252 To this point, civilians

243 Ibid., 27, 28. 244 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 134. 245 Knox, 44; Digest, 50.17.2. 246 Jordan, “Woman’s Rule,” 433. 247 Knox, 12r. 248 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 136. 249 Bodin, 405. 250 Jordan, 433, Shephard, Gender and Authority, 144. 251 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 127v. 252 Sommerville, 56. Sommerville cites two civil theorists that claimed this position during the time that Howard was writing “Dutifull Defence,” Cornelius Benincasa, Tractatus de paupertate ac eius privilegiis, (1562), fol., 72r.; and Joannes Nevizanus, Sylvae nuptialis libri sex, (1570), 255.

47 who regarded inheritance as a part of natural law, condemned laws in the ius juris civilis that prohibited women from inheriting their rightful portions or titles.253 Howard followed the same pattern of censure. He first asserted that the civil law was a part of natural law: “this inequality of proportion which our libelers demand in so great equality of right is called offensio naturae vulnus intestinu, an offence of nature, a wound within the bowel.” The connection made between the ius civile, and the ius naturale was a common one made in the early modern period when referencing the Digest and the Institutes.254 Howard agreed, declaring: “The civil laws, being principally grounded upon the law of nature are the fittest measures to try out a certain truth in this point, whether women ought to rule or not.”255 Reason, a derivative of natural law, formed the base of the civil law; as a woman’s right to inherit was an extension of natural law, and her competence to rule was based in natural reason, the civil law should logically guarantee her rights. However, the laws of the ancients did not necessarily apply to contemporary circumstances, or as Howard stated, “at this day it is otherwise.”256 The interpretation of civil law, like all law, could be altered or rejected, adjusting as necessary to the needs or wishes of society, a point he would further emphasize in his argument on sacred law. After Howard’s opening discussion on defining the ius civile and its relation to the ius naturale, he addressed two sets of objections. The first dealt with a woman’s right to inherit titles, which he referred to as the “body” of the civil law, the linchpin of his argument.257 Instead of focusing on the statutes in the Digests as Knox had, Howard turned toward the imperial legislation of the Institutes to prove that blood, not gender, determined succession: “The natural reason being only looked to without distinction either of sex or of right in power they that are in blood and kindred next ought to succeed in inheritance.”258 According to Howard, Justinian had corrected earlier degrees of difference in the law, making males and females equal inheritors. Furthermore, Howard asserted that a distinct difference existed between the inheritance of private estates and the office of monarch. Laws concerning the private disposal of estates, which were determined by man, did not apply to the inheritance of crowns, because God chose monarchs. Howard wrote: “They [the detractors] are blind as I think that can’t find a difference between private persons and heirs to crowns, between free will and necessity, between the council of a corporation that disposes as seems good for their particular estate, and princes of dominion and power that provide for their posterity.”259 He devoted a good portion of the second book to the issue of the crowns, including it at some point in each objection. Secondly, Howard addressed the right of women to act upon the authority that came with public offices. Howard referred to this section of the law as the “branches” of the law, specific ordinances concerning women, such as exclusion from the public offices of judge and magistrate, and private issues, such as the prohibition on women offering testimony, and dealing with their children and adopting heirs. In doing so, he directly focused on the references in the civil law that Knox had used in First Blast. Howard acknowledged that there was a difference between the role of women in public offices and private estates, including the inheritance of

253 Ibid. 254 Ibid., 67. 255 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 133v. 256 Ibid., fol. 150v. 257 When referring to the “body” in this section of the work, Howard is not referring to the Corpus, but the main part of a unit, which then has sections branching off of it. 258 Ibid., fol. 126v. Cited in Shephard, Gender and Authority, 138. 259 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 133v.

48 kingdoms. Nevertheless, women were allowed to exercise authority in the public realm. Once again, Howard had law and contemporary custom on his side. In English law, women were not considered a single category, nor were they explicitly prevented from holding offices or participating in the political process.260 Moreover, women in England were known for having more public freedom than ladies on the continent. High ranking Tudor women were often able to establish and maintain a great degree of local power, even though they lived in traditional marriages. Women acted as electors, were allowed to serve as justices of the peace, sat on commissions of justice, filed suits on behalf of their children and spouses, applied for pardons, and influenced the placement of their children and even influencing sensitive political decisions.261 Howard accepted that in the private sector, women traditionally played a very small role in administrative positions; nevertheless, there were numerous examples of women, including Elizabeth herself, who had an active role in the governing process: “we find that women are not so simple but they can deal both warily and soundly in resolving matters of debate so often as they are put in trust.”262 His reasoning for the deficiency in female representation was not the lack of ability, but lack of the practical education necessary to fulfill the role of a judge or a magistrate.263 Once again, legal restrictions did not reflect social realities, and therefore, the civil law as a standard of comparison would not apply. Howard’s primary argument regarding the laws preventing women from exercising authority over their children was that in contemporary society they no longer applied, and Howard called the detractors of women on this point:

They that are less deeply and profoundly grounded in the knowledge of the civil law then these strange mates would have us hold themselves to be can tell what punishment belongs to shifting advocates that vouch these statutes in any open court of justice as if they stood in force, which in their conscience they know to be repealed.264

Additionally, he claimed that Knox’s assertions were flawed. For example, Knox’s allegation that women could not adopt children was not current with modern theories of law. In claiming that a woman had rights over her children, Howard represented the standard thought of civil lawyers at the time, who believed that denying maternal privilege was against the law of nature and the law of God. The fifth commandment did not say father only, and there were few people who would deny that children should obey both of their parents. Women were often named as guardians in wills, even if the woman was not the child’s mother.265 Moreover, a mother’s consent was necessary before a child could wed.266

260 Anne Laurence, Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social History (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 238. 261 Harris, “Women and Politics,” 269-274. 262 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 139r. 263 Laurence, 240. Though women were allowed to hold the title of justice of the peace, Barbara Harris notes that she could not find any example of them actually doing so, perhaps due to education or experience. Anne Laurence notes that Lady Anne Clifford was high sheriffess of Westmorland in the 1660’s. 264 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 147r. 265 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 143. Howard had personal experience with regard to female guardians. He was placed under the guardianship of his aunt, the Countess of Richmond, after the death of his father in 1547. 266 Harris, Women and Politics, 260; Sommerville, Sex and Subjugation, 65. Sommerville cites several court cases in the early modern period where marriages were denied or children disinherited because a mother’s consent was not sought or given.

49 Howard also offered an explanation why women had traditionally been prevented from participating in public life. Within Roman law, women were protected from the possibilities of defamation, insult, and strident behavior that often accompanied public debates and law cases: “The first devisers of the law did rather mean it as a shield to modesty then as a bar to right.”267 They were not barred due to inferiority, nor did the restrictions on public life have any bearing on the inheritance of a royal estate. Howard drew his conclusions from the precedents he believed to be set by the facts presented:

If these examples may be orderly compared to with those limitations which are alleged out of the civil law, I doubt not but all reasonable men will soon perceive that rather private women for the surer guard of their good names then heirs to kingdoms in respect of any derogation from right were comprised in the prohibition.268

To this point, he wrote that women were, “equally capable of politick conceits, equally sufficient to give sound advice, equally necessary for the maintenance of the commonwealth.”269 Women may have been barred from certain positions for their protection, but when their services were required, they were to be treated with equal respect and given equal authority because they were fully able to fulfill the duties of their office. Howard followed his standard pattern of rebuttal for each assertion and objection to the civil law by providing numerous historical examples of women who had held positions of authority throughout the history of the Roman, Ptolemaic, and Byzantine Empires as evidence. Using the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius, Howard offered commentary on Livinia, Agrippina, Drusilla, Plotina, Theodora, and even Cleopatra—placing their positions of authority in reference to the kings and Caesars they were related to. Within the context of the women he chose to highlight, Howard did not differentiate between the authority of women who were regents, queen consorts or queens regnant. The fact that they could inherit and offer political advice was based upon the same principle, the theory of the law was overridden by reality; women were not barred from “administration of the state or from succession in government.”270 In order to refute the objections to women holding positions of authority within the family, Howard used biblical examples of women who had influence or control over their children. Because Scripture was considered a valid part of law, viewed as historically true, it was common for authors to use biblical women to prove an argument.271 Howard discussed two stories of women in Scripture, Rebecca and Ruth, as evidence of a woman’s control over their children.272 Moreover, he paid special attention to the daughters of Salphaad, whose story in the book of Exodus was solid evidence in favor of female inheritance. Salphaad had no male issue. His daughters petitioned for their father’s inheritance, and received a favorable decision.273 However, Howard’s inclusion of the story in this section of his work was peculiar. He asserted that if, hypothetically, Salphaad had been king of Judah, his eldest daughter would have received

267 “Dutifull Defence,” 137r.; Shephard, 139. 268 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 132r. 269 Ibid., fol.155r. 270 Ibid. fol. 136v. 271 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 144. 272 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 151r.; Genesis 26: 34-5; Ruth 2:2. Rebecca was displeased with her son’s choice of a wife. Ruth was obedient when her mother in law instructed her on how to approach Boaz. 273 Numbers 27.

50 the title and the power associated with her inheritance. Howard’s purpose was to confront Knox, for the Scotsman could not disprove a woman’s right to inherit property. Instead, Knox denied that women could act upon the authority that came with titles:

The question is not if women may not succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children; for that I willingly grant. But the question is if women may succeed to their fathers in offices, and chiefly to that office the executor whereof doth occupy the place and throne of God.274

Howard disagreed and chose to use the story as a conclusion to his proof of the difference between private inheritance and titles to thrones. Continuing with the same pattern of objective and historical examples, Howard was satisfied that he had proven his point in his second book. Training in the civil law and knowledge of the common law and how these laws were realistically applied allowed Howard a reasonable degree of success in rebutting the anti-gynecocracy writers. He correctly stated that women at the time had a modicum of political latitude and legal rights under the law, and he used Biblical and historical examples to show how his views did anything but set precedence when it came to the right of a woman to inherit the crown.

274 Knox, 46v. “To bear rule or authority over man can neither be right nor inheritance to woman. For that can neither be just inheritance to any person which God by his word hath plainly denied unto them, but to all women hath God denied authority above man, as most manifestly is before declared.” Ibid.

51 CHAPTER 5

THE SACRED LAW

After proving that a woman could inherit and rule by natural and civil law, Howard moved on to discuss sacred law and how it applied to women. His straightforward approach when dealing with sacred law differed from his previous style. Howard avoided subdued word play and moved directly into his argument. Unlike the first two books, Howard never mentioned any authors by name and provided no direct citations to any treatise on women. Furthermore, he limited his sources on sacred law to the Vulgate and occasional citations of the patristic writings. His purpose was to apply the sacred law to the issue of female regiment by proving three points. First, women could inherit estates according to sacred law. Second, women could assume the titles inherited with estates and act upon their authority. Third, once a woman’s power was established, he explained how her authority was demonstrated. In his discussions on natural and civil law, Howard presented theories embodying contemporary, and at times progressive, philosophical and legal thought. However, subjective thinking was accepted and debate encouraged in philosophy and law. Determining the intent and purpose of God’s law, the lex divina, or sacred law, was a different matter. Religion was a more contentious issue, and attempts to deviate from what men considered the truth could incite censure, condemnation, and at times violence. The passionate belief in absolute truth was evident in attacks on female rulers; one of the main objections to a queen regnant was her distinct defiance of sacred law—the unalterable laws set forth by God in Scripture.275 Theories according to sacred law drew the most direct conclusions, yet, at the same time were the most controversial in their character. Traditional belief held that the law of nature reflected God’s will through the physical world. Man-made, or positive law, emanated from God through man’s ability to reason. Therefore, they were both, at some point, subject to natural variance and interpretation of circumstance. On the other hand, sacred law came directly from the mouth of God, through Scripture, and was not generally subject to alternative interpretation. The highest condemnation and declaration against female regiment was based on the laws of God, versus the laws of nature or of man. Knox, Goodman, and Buchanan had all declared that a woman ruler violated the law of God, though from the objections presented in this section of the work, it is clear that Howard was specifically refuting Knox and his declarations in First Blast. Howard began by declaring that God created women equal to men. He was fully aware of the debate over Eve, and how it related to contemporary women. Therefore, he reviewed the assertions he had made about a woman’s position earlier in the manuscript so he could “proceed” in a “more orderly” manner.276 The writings of St. Paul and the Church Fathers had heavily influenced opinion about women’s position at creation and conventionally supported three truths about Eve. First, God had created Eve after Adam, from Adam, and for Adam, evidence of her original subordination. Second, Eve’s person did not contain the whole of the image of God,

275 Both Knox and Goodman took this position. Goodman wrote: “God is not contrary to himself, which at the beginning appointed the woman to be in subjection to her husband, and the man to be the head of the woman.” Sig. D2v. 276 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 156r.

52 ensuring her inequality. Third, after the fall, God permanently sanctioned Eve’s position of subjection as a punishment for the sin for which she was responsible.277 For example, Tertullian commented on Eve: “You are the Devil’s gateway. You are the first deserter of divine law; You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.”278 Early maledictions were expanded into debate on a woman’s very nature in relation to God. St. Augustine discussed Eve’s position in his work On the Trinity, declaring that the female was not even made in the image of God: “the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that the whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God.”279 Though written in the Patristic period, these negative beliefs about women were maintained into the early modern period, and anti- gynecocracy writers supported the same conclusions.280 In the early sixteenth century, when reformers disputed the traditional exegesis of Scripture, new ideas about women emerged, challenging the conventional interpretation of Eve’s position in Genesis. Eve was no longer seen as being created unequal to Adam. Instead, Eve was declared equal to Adam from conception and created in the same image. Therefore, she was also the spiritual equal to man and guaranteed salvation.281 John Calvin accepted this more progressive position, writing that the sexes were equal in “that glory which peculiarly shines forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and the senses, represent the divine order.”282 Martin Luther based his declaration of spiritual equality on Genesis 1:27: “Male and female, he created them.”283 However, Luther did not go so far as to claim total equality with men. Spiritual equality did not equal social or political equality, and both religious reformers believed that women were still subject to male authority in home and realm.284 Although Knox and Goodman were Calvinist reformers, their convictions about women remained consistent with medieval thought. Knox, in particular, embraced the complete triumvirate of female subjection: “For God first by the order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman, by the reason of her rebellion; woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule or command him.”285 He then connected Eve’s subjection to Adam, with the subordination of all women to all men: “This sentence I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters . . . so that no woman can ever presume to reign above man.”286 Furthermore, citing St. Augustine, Knox supported the claim that women were not created in God’s image: “How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man . . .compared to man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him.”287 Eve’s sentence of physical pain, multiplied sorrows and subordination to her spouse revealed a permanent change in the female, because God transferred the maledictions pronounced against Eve to all women. Any

277 Margaret Sommerville, 25, 26. 278 Cited in Weisner, 12. Terutullian associated Eve’s position with all women. 279 St. Augustine, On the Trinity. 12:7; cited in Diana H. Coole, Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1988), 63. 280 For an in depth discussion on Eve and medieval thought, see Coole, 49-70 and Margaret Sommerville, 23-29. 281 Jordan, 421. 282 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183. 283 Genesis 1:27. 284 Shephard, Gender and Authority, 183. 285 Knox, 13r. 286 Ibid., 14v.-15r. 287 Ibid., 20r.

53 examples of women holding positions of authority in Scripture were extraordinary exceptions and did not set any precedent beyond their time. Furthermore, natural and civil law simply reinforced God’s precepts laid down in Genesis and was as binding in the sixteenth-century as it was in biblical times. In reply to the censure, Howard asserted four truths about women. First, women were endowed with reason and therefore had equality of condition. Secondly, because women were given possession over beasts at the same time as Adam, they had equal dominion over them. Third, women had free will and were created in the image of God. Fourth, since women were created in the image of God, they had the sanction to be monarchs: “Wherever we perceive to find the image of God, we need not doubt that there is also power to bear rule.” These truths provided evidence of “the plot of providence, this was the law of nature, this was the manner of our first creation.”288 Concerning the interpretation of Genesis chapter three, Howard disagreed with Knox, Goodman, and Buchanan declaring, “that equality of condition wherein both Sexes were created in the first.”289 Howard believed that Eve’s creation from Adam’s flesh was a sign of her equality, not inferiority, because God only made Adam from a “gross clot of clay” and not flesh.290 Eve was not a servant, but a helper in the sense of being a personal companion and a partner in procreation. Howard interpreted man as meaning husband, not all humankind, claiming that it was the proper translation from the Hebrew.291 A woman was indeed subject to her husband, but single women, widows, and married women connected to other men were allowed to exercise authority if they had the proper right to do so. Emphasizing the difference between private position and public office, Howard went on to say specifically that the law laid down in Genesis did not apply to women in positions of authority, “since he [God] is neither immutable nor contrary to himself, the law set down in Genesis concerning duty and obedience of wives is not repugnant to the right of any governess.”292 Concerning Eve’s position in relationship to God, Howard believed God created her in His image, and on that basis, she was fully capable of exercising authority. He wrote:

We find that women were endowed with reason, which is the rule of government as well as men that they had equal dominion over creatures that possession was given to both by God at one time and with one act in one degree with mind that both were fashioned according to God’s Image; wherever we perceive or find the Image of god we need not doubt that there is also the power to bear rule.293

After establishing Eve’s equality, Howard moved on to discuss a woman’s right to inherit property and titles, and once received, how a woman demonstrated their authority. Combining natural and sacred law with his belief in an original state of nature, Howard asserted that inheritance rights were a part of a natural, evolutionary process. At the time of creation, God had not established any laws concerning monarchy: “in this dawning of the day that were a foolish part to enquire of any queen when the first foundation of monarchy was not yet established.”294 Mankind had dominion over animals, but not over one another. He then emphasized his view on

288 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 157r. 289 Ibid. 290 Ibid., fol. 204r. 291 Ibid., fol. 187v.; Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 597. 292 Ibid., fol. 162v.-163r. 293 Ibid., fol. 158r. 294 Ibid., fol. 157v.

54 the natural progression of law. Howard did not believe the law, as laid down in Scripture, was definitive and unchanging. Instead, he asserted that the decrees in Genesis were the starting point of a divinely inspired, natural, and logical progression of principles that could evolve and change if necessary. Over time, as mankind’s social needs changed, organized political systems developed, as well as precedent for inheritance. According to Howard, by the time complaints concerning inheritance were first made in Genesis, some form of precedent must have been set. As an example, he used Leah and Rachel, two daughters who complained against their father in Genesis 31 for not honoring their right to inherit. Howard wrote: “for this they could not have done with any likelihood unless both by the law of nature and the custom of that age they had been sometime capable not of movables alone but for the same respect of natural inheritance.”295 He continued with his point by noting that by the time Salphaad’s daughters petitioned for their inheritance in Numbers 27 it was natural for God to include women in the laws of inheritance. Howard asserted that God “pronounced with his voice that the motion was reasonable.” Inheritance determined that “the daughters of Salphaad had not required a thing that was unnatural but just carried in my opinion a special weight for answer to their natural demand.”296 It was a part of the natural process of evolving law. As the law developed, God then established monarchy: “After it had seemed good to him that governs all to limit all men’s actions by a written law . . . that an order was set down for kings.”297 Furthermore, if God could change the law to allow monarchs in general, then he could then modify the law to allow women to rule. According to Howard, numerous biblical women had inherited property and he used their examples as precedent to underscore God’s sanction on female authority: “Sure I am that the holy ghost acknowledges no difference in this respect for even as a daughter may continue the name and honor of her father, so may she in like sort for any thing I find, continue his estate and claim all titles of authority that are linked to inheritance.”298 If women were equal and could through the natural progression of the laws inherit property, it was also the natural intention of God’s law for them to utilize the power that came with their titles. He then made the association between the biblical examples and contemporary female heirs: “The same respect and reason by which the Daughters of Salphaad demanded their allowance is as proper, if not more expedient, for heirs general to kings. The right is one to all the mean, the curse, the end are all the same.”299 According to Howard, these cases cited in Scripture could be used as precedent to judge current cases of female heirs. Once the right to rule was determined, Howard moved on in his argument to show what type of power a woman demonstrated. Females who clearly held positions of authority, like Deborah in the book of Judges, had been a sticking point for Knox. He could not deny that she held God-granted authority over Israel as a Judge. Nevertheless, Knox never departed from his opinion and declared that Deborah had an extraordinary dispensation from God in order to rule. She was an exception, and her situation did not apply to women in general.300 To this point, Knox addressed the question of Deborah’s marital status to claim that Mary I had usurped her authority. He declared that if Deborah had been married, and did not relinquish her claims to her

295 Ibid., fol. 158r. 296 Ibid., fol. 160r. 297 Ibid., fol., 158r. 298 Ibid., fol. 159v. 299 Ibid., fol. 161r. 300 Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 601.

55 husband, her position would have been unlawful.301 Applying the analysis to Mary, he asserted that she should have surrendered her authority to Philip, regardless of his nationality and despite the fact that Knox considered the Spanish king to be as much of an enemy to the state as Mary. As Mary’s husband, he was dominant and she must submit to his rule. Howard tackled the question of female regiment by first defining what royal authority should be, mainly “absolute authority.” By the late sixteenth century, theories of absolute monarchy were developing, as royal power was increasing in many European countries. Absolutists asserted that a prince was accountable to God alone for his actions, and that his commands had to be obeyed, providing they did not contradict divine or natural law.302 Furthermore, a ruler’s power was directly ordained by God. Howard defined an absolute monarchy in a similar manner:

authority above all states within the commonwealth without necessity of humbling themselves to any other power then that of God himself, if they speak of a magistrate as notwithstanding his dependence upon the mouth of God alone for direction in generality, yet deals and disposes in all other matters not precisely limited as seems good unto himself, I dare undertake to prove [that they] be counted absolute.303

Howard was not contradicting himself by denying political organization was ordained by God, yet stating that rulers were. He was following his pattern of thinking, which differentiated between public and private offices. Government was the result of a reasonable process; however, individual rulers could be chosen by God. He recognized that there was a difference between the actual position of Judges in Scripture and contemporary kings; however, he did not see any difference in their authority to rule. Both Judges and kings were chosen by God, giving them equal authority. Deborah was a primary example of an absolute ruler according to Howard, and maintained that she held her position not by special dispensation or exception, but rather as a chosen representative of God who was no different from chosen men. Furthermore, Deborah ruled with God’s authority, therefore exercising the same authority as men. Her power had been no different from that of the male judges. She was directly involved in military affairs, and was credited for military victory. She decided all matters in debate, delivered orders to men, and declared a malediction against God’s enemies. Her actions were the proof of her authority, for Deborah was able to spare the life of a man and “for who could spare a life but an absolute ruler?”304 Howard provided a list of females he believed to be absolute rulers, citing Esther as having the “crown Imperial” placed upon her head and stating that Judith was called Benedicta due to the greatness of her reign. Howard mentioned Pharaoh’s daughter as having the power to set Moses as heir to Pharaoh and that she could not have done this had her power not been absolute in some form. He also used the queen of Sheba as an example of an absolute ruler. Her power was immense and even though she ruled over infidels, “she could neither have done by

301 Knox, 42v. 302 J.P. Sommerville, “Absolutism and Royalism.” The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450- 1700,” ed., J.H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 348. 303 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 166r. 304 Ibid., fol. 165v.

56 custom nor by conscience unless her title had been lawful and her empire absolute.”305 He described countries ruled in the name of queens in Ezekiel 29:4 and Isaiah 47:5. He finished with Candice, queen of Ethiopia, who had authority over a great treasure and numerous servants, including eunuchs. In light of all of the examples, Howard declared, “I marvel at what our adversaries are able to object against.”306 After establishing the right of a woman to inherit and rule, Howard discussed a woman’s capacity to fulfill the demands of the office. The accusation of unworthiness was not an unusual argument. Citing Aristotle to Augustine, men had proclaimed the unworthiness of women to govern men, and Knox addressed the assertion in First Blast. In fact, one of his main reasons for forbidding female rule, after the pronouncement laid down in Genesis, was that women were simply not capable or worthy of holding positions of authority. Knox drew heavily upon the examples of Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose and others, citing them extensively to prove a woman’s inferior character.307 Knox declared women to be, “weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment.”308 Women placed into positions of authority over men were incapable of resisting pride. Individuals who governed had to be “constant, stable, prudent, and doing everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with men.”309 Knox also used the biblical examples of Jezebel and Athalia to prove the incapability of women, even though he had previously stated that the use of examples was not valid for making a point. Howard used the Church fathers in his argument on a woman’s worthiness to rule, but focused on their opinions on law in general, rather than on the estimations of women’s faults. Unlike Knox, Howard concentrated on the numerous biblical women who were considered worthy to hold the positions they were given, rather than those who were seen as unworthy. He cited Deborah as a chief example of a worthy woman, and her position as a Judge as dramatic proof of a woman’s ability to rule “because a woman was not thought unworthy to rule in the choice of God (from whom the fountain of wisdom springs) to bear rule over men; and the same god . . . made Deborah sufficient to rule.”310 He went on to praise her ability to stabilize the nation stating that “Israel did hold a most direct and godly course while she bare rule.”311 Howard noted that during the reigns of male Judges, Israel had gone astray and went so far as to say that the Israelites preferred Deborah’s rule to those before her who “had proved to their loss how unable sundry men that governed before had been.”312 He also mentioned Naomi, who was called blessed, Ruth, who held the right to her land and exhibited exceptional character, and Esther, a queen and a woman of faith, as examples of worthy biblical women. All three women had a distinct role in preserving their people, even though they were not in positions of direct authority—a point on which Howard did not differentiate, and revealing a weakness in his argument. Howard was willing to extrapolate conclusions from examples that could not necessarily be made. Additionally, he once again used the queen of Sheba and Candice, queen of

305 Ibid., fol. 173r. 306 Ibid., fol. 177v. 307 Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 162. 308 Ibid. 309 Ibid., 24r. 310 Ibid., fol.163r. 311 Ibid., fol. 163v. 312 Ibid.

57 Ethiopia, as examples of worthy female rulers.313 He described Sheba as, “that worthy lady as we find in the story of the kings.”314 Even though they were non-Christian, they were still biblical and where thus valid illustrations. While discussing the worthiness of a woman to rule, Howard made a digression to the subject of prophecy and its relation to a monarch’s ability and authority. He theorized that most of the Church fathers did not necessarily object to the fact that Deborah was a Judge. What surprised them is that she was capable of ruling at all. For this reason, they concluded that Deborah must have had the gift of prophecy, a gift from God that gave her the ability to rule. Knox supported this conclusion writing that, “it was the spirit of prophecy which rested upon her.”315 Because of this, Deborah was exempt from the “common maledictions given to women,” and God allowed her to rule in order to stress his own majesty and power by proving he could use the weakest of vessels. Knox then declared the current women who had claims to the thrones of England and Scotland did not posses the gift of prophecy, making them ineligible to rule.316 Howard responded by stating if Deborah was a prophet, then so were all of the Judges. Additionally, if Knox claimed female rulers had to have the gift of prophecy, so did men; however, no one demanded this quality in male rulers who, “being neither so profoundly wise nor so divinely prophetic” succeeded to thrones. According to Howard, the very thought of demanding a monarch to be a prophet was ludicrous: “They that require this gift in kings and queens of our time may as easily restore old Adam to paradise.”317 The issue had nothing to do with inheritance; nevertheless, the notion had pressed Howard into responding to the claim. One of the common assumptions made about female rulers was that their presence was a sign of divine judgment. Calvin, Knox, and Goodman all supported this position. In fact, Knox considered the reign of a female monarch to be so repulsive that it could be nothing else but a sign of judgment from God. He declared that the troubles of the nation were due to the “monstrous empire of a cruel woman [which] we know to be the only occasion of these miseries.”318 Though Knox was referring to Mary I when he wrote the passage, he was forced to change his position in 1559 when Elizabeth came to the throne. He conceded that Elizabeth was an exception, but he did not change his basic belief and articulated that even Elizabeth was illegitimate if she did not rule through her councilors or husband when she married. Knox then used the examples of Jezebel and Athalia, who were considered to be wicked women and cruel rulers, as proof of women used for the purposes of divine judgment. The Scripture stated, “O my people! Their oppressors are children and women rule over them.”319 Female government was nothing more than a deviation from God’s original law and therefore had to be seen as a sign of divine anger.320 Howard succinctly refuted the idea of a woman’s rule being simply a sign of divine judgment. He pointed out that both Eleazor and Caleb had only daughters available to inherit who were beloved and favored by God.321 Furthermore, Esther’s willingness to sacrifice herself,

313 The queen of Sheba appears in I Kings. Candice is mentioned in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. 314 Ibid., fol. 173r. I Kings 10:1-13 tells the queen of Sheba’s story. 315 Knox, 71r. 316 Ibid., 42r. 317 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 165r. 318 Ibid., 3v. 319 Isaiah 3:12. 320 Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 159. 321 Ibid., fol. 168v; Chronicles 23:22.

58 allowed her to save her people. He used their examples to show “that persons of that quality are not ever sent for plagues and punishments of sin as they would have us to believe that impugned their regiment.”322 He continued by stating that he was fully aware of the arguments using the examples of Athalia and Jezebel as examples of cruel and tyrannical monarchs. However, he claimed that their tyranny was not due to their sex, but due to their wickedness as individuals. There were plenty of examples of cruel and tyrannical men to prove the divine judgment due to gender theory wrong. Howard referred to Jeroboam, Naboth, and the kings of Israel as examples of male rulers who had brought misery to their people: “The wickedness of Athalia can bear no greater force in disabling the weaker sex then the damnable idolatry of Jeroboam and his successors in the disgrace of men whom they defend.”323 There may have been one or two cruel women, but there were numerous cruel men, once again making the argument invalid. Howard brought his arguments together and concluded the issue of inheritance. He believed that the intention of God’s law was to provide for the well-being and peace of his people. If this meant changing a law in order to maintain the good, then it could be done without changing God’s intention. For Howard, laws were to be seen in their essence. Knox tended to look at the letter of the law because he would go no further than the first ordinance of God. Howard saw the law as more pliable and states, “for as it was apparent to the providence of god that the question would oftentimes fall out so in like sort, it pleased him to take certain order before hand that it might be decided always according to one rule of equity.”324 Believing this to be so, Howard posited that some laws were meant for only a time, that some were meant to be changed or repealed if they needed to be changed for the good of the people, but all law, like that laid down in the Scriptures was still the law of God, since the law came from Him to begin with. Howard ended the first section of the book on sacred law by offering, what was to him, the ultimate example of a female who held authority, the Virgin Mary. This was perhaps the most personal and most ambiguous claim in his work. Knox was convinced that Queen Mary’s rule was damnable because she was Catholic. He accused England of bowing her neck “under the yoke of Satan, and of his pruned ministers, pestilent papists and proud Spaniards. And yet, can they not consider that where a woman reigns and papists bear authority, that there must needs Satan be president of the council?”325 Howard rejected the attack on Catholicism (possible proof that he not writing solely for his own benefit, since he was writing to a Protestant queen) by claiming that the Virgin Mary was not only the most worthy and best example of all women, but that, “the blessed virgin and most holy mother of our Savior Christ as the true and lawful heir to the crown of Judea at what time she brought forth the redeemer of the world.”326 Mary was from the house of David and the tribe of Judah and therefore the rightful heir. Her status was confirmed by the visitation of the angel Gabriel in Luke when the Angel spoke of Jesus, “and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.”327 He claimed that Christ refused the right to earthly regiment through his mother’s line in order to fulfill the Law, not because he could not do so. For Howard, a Catholic, there could be no greater sign of divine authority than investing it in the Holy mother and therefore setting a precedent for women after her.

322 Ibid. 323 Ibid., fol. 172r. 324 Ibid., fol. 160v. 325 Knox, 32r. 326 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 179r. 327 Ibid., fol.180r.; Luke 1:32.

59 Howard’s final arguments in “Dutifull Defence” dealt with how the writings of St. Paul affected women in the early modern period. Earlier in the treatise, he had made his opinion of the apostle’s writing clear; Paul’s recommendations to the Corinthian church were just that— recommendations, not decrees sent down from God: “When can they allege the text of Paul against the law set down by God himself?”328 However, due to the extent to which Knox relied on the Pauline letters to support his maledictions, Howard addressed each of his claims in the section on sacred law. Knox dedicated a considerable amount of First Blast to Paul’s advice laid out in his letters in the New Testament. Knox believed that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore binding as God’s word: “but the Holy Ghost gives to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kind of superiority, authority and power over man, speaking as flowing by the mouth of Saint Paul.”329 Knox cited Paul’s recommendations to the Church, and extrapolated form them the association to all women under all circumstances: “The apostle takes power from all woman to speak in the assembly, ergo, he permits no woman to rule above man.”330 Furthermore, he believed the writings of Tertullian and Augustine supported his conclusion, and accused men who accepted a woman’s rule to the blinded by “miserable bondage.” The Pauline condemnations combined with the decrees in Genesis, made a woman’s subjection complete, and he likened any attempt to deviate from his conclusion as tyranny.331 In addressing each objection, Howard maintained the same style of argument he had used when addressing the objections according to natural and civil law. First, he refuted the statement against women, and then provided examples to prove that women could perform the supposedly prohibited role. He presented a progressive view of scriptural exegesis by stating that Paul’s prohibition of women speaking in the Church, should be interpreted in light of the situation at the time. Paul’s command may have applied to women in a particular congregation, but application of the decree could not be applied to all women, nor could it be extrapolated that it applied to any situation outside the Church: “I deny that either Moses or David or Joshua spoke to the people in that kind which they that are precise call speaking at this day that is preaching of the word or that Saint Paul, whose words without his meaning they would urge did speak of any congregation then the Church.”332 His opinion fit in with his view of law in general, that laws were applicable to certain people under certain circumstances, and no law could be deemed as unalterable. With regard to God’s law, man may not have been able to change it, but God could, and did when he saw it as necessary. Howard’s main objection to Knox’s declarations was the Scotsman’s literal view of Scripture and his refusal to apply alternate interpretations of law to a given circumstance. Howard refuted Knox in each case by offering progressive views of scriptural exegesis and application. God created women in his image and they were therefore equal to men in mind and spirit. According to Scripture, women were able to inherit titles and act upon their authority. Furthermore, laws could evolve and change as necessary to ensure the well-being of people and the state. Natural law reinforced sacred law and both provided women with the sanction needed to rule as a monarch—a position that no man was allowed to prevent them from acceding to, or take away from them if they were the legal heir.

328 Ibid, fol. 20v. 329 Knox, 15r. 330 Ibid., 16v. 331 Ibid., 33r. 332 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 217r.

60 CONCLUSION

AN EXTRAORDINARY WORK

The arguments in “Dutifull Defence” filled nearly 200 folio pages of the manuscript. In contrast, his conclusion to the work is only one folio page. Howard’s summary was simply written—he stated that he had proven his argument. Under natural law, women were not created subject to men. They were equal in mind, and the physical differences, which he described as only in “proportion of more or less”, between men and women were not sufficient to bar them from ruling.333 The civil law did not necessarily apply to the circumstances of the time, and the men who tried to use them to make a definitive argument did so out of “willful perversion.” Sacred law favored women, and stood as a positive precedent for the demands of female heirs.334 After summarizing his arguments, Howard ended his work by defending his work and appealing to Elizabeth:

It remains only, that as the zeal and duty which I carried to my peerless sovereign was the strongest motive that enticed me to take in hand this work, so now I conclude the same with earnest prayer unto God that it will please him now and evermore to water the sweet springing seeds of her imperial perfections with the dew of grace to prosper and assist her worthy labors for our country.335

Howard was confident, and hoped that his defense would help him obtain his goal of restoration to royal favor. It is not known how Queen Elizabeth received “Dutifull Defence,” and regardless of Howard’s intended outcome, he did not achieve his goal. He was not welcomed at court for another ten years, though he continued to involve himself with the queen’s favorites, who were usually relatives, especially the Earl of Essex. Howard’s most notorious achievement during the 1590’s was his correspondence with James VI. Howard acted as an intermediary between Robert Cecil and the Scottish King during the time when the succession was being determined not by Elizabeth, but by the men who surrounded her in her last years.336 Finally, in 1603, Howard was rewarded for his thirty years of effort to regain what he believed to be rightfully his. James VI, now also James I, awarded Howard with the title, the earl of Northampton, and admitted him to the Privy Council. For the next fourteen years, Howard managed to construct an immensely strong power base of political influence and wealth. By the time he died in 1614, the Howard family had once again reached a pinnacle. Howard went from living in his “cell in Greenwich” to being one the wealthiest men in the kingdom.337 Howard differed from nearly all the men who wrote detractions or defenses of women at the time. His life circumstances, education, and religion provided him with a unique viewpoint

333 “Dutifull Defence,” fol. 231r. 334 Ibid. 335 Ibid. 336 L. L. Peck, Northampton, 22. 337 Nott, 428.

61 from which to judge women rulers. The foundation of his argument differed so greatly from the men he was refuting, no agreement would ever have been found. Knox and Goodman ultimately based their condemnation of female rule on Sacred law, which stood above all other law and could not be contradicted or changed. Howard based his argument on natural law, which he saw as the foundation of all earthly law, and as a part of God’s law. Rejecting Aristotelian biology (the primary source for most arguments against female rule based on natural law), Howard focused instead on Plato’s concept that though physical differences did occur, what mattered was that in “essence”, there was no difference between male and female. Historical examples demonstrated Plato’s conclusions and proved by women’s abilities that natural law made them capable of rule. Once natural law demonstrated that women were equal, Howard showed that the tenets of civil law did not necessarily bar a woman from holding a position of authority. Civil law was a part of natural law, as they were derived from a man’s natural ability to reason. However, Roman laws, like all laws, were written to address particular problems. As sixteenth-century circumstances differed greatly from Roman times, and contemporary custom supported female inheritance, antiquated laws preventing them from doing so did not apply. Howard also differentiated between public offices and the monarchy. Men elected or appointed individuals to public office, but God chose monarchs, therefore, man-made laws prohibiting women from civil duty, did not apply to the inheritance of a crown. Most importantly, Howard declared female inheritance of authority to be a right in and of itself that could not be altered by opinion or custom.338 Finally, Howard determined that sacred law supported female rights of inheritance. He believed women were created equal to men, and that after the Fall, Eve’s corporal punishment did not alter her spiritual or hierarchal position. After creation, there were no kings. As time and circumstances necessitated additional forms of government, God’s law progressed to establish monarchy and the laws revolving around the inheritance of kingdoms. Examples in Scripture could be applied as precedent, and as God allowed women to inherit in Scripture, they were allowed to inherit in contemporary times. Additionally, Scriptural decrees supported natural law, because God’s creation established natural law. If his claim appeared to state that sacred law was in error, it was because the men who objected to female rule misinterpreted the law, not because Scripture was wrong. However, in one respect Howard’s writing was the same as any of the men who chose to discuss women in the sixteenth-century. He was passionate about his subject; and though he was an academic and a scholar, he allowed his personal feelings to come through in his work. Indeed, he wrote an exceptional defense of female regiment, but interspersed in his arguments were examples of intense anger toward individuals and states who he thought had betrayed him. The effect of his defense, or any of them written at the time, is difficult to determine. The idea of a queen regnant was swept away by men who now espoused contradictory ideas of the absolute monarch verses the rights of the people. Nevertheless, Howard’s work was an achievement in scholarship and revolutionary thought. He dared to place a woman on equal standing with men in almost every aspect of political and epistemological thought. Natural, civil, and sacred law determined that women were in essence equal, and therefore capable of inheriting offices and power. Nevertheless, the gynecocracy debate was a groundbreaking opening for women’s issues in the early modern period. After 1600, the debate waned until women writing for themselves

338 Shephard, “Henry Howard,” 602.

62 picked up the argument in the eighteenth-century. For, after Elizabeth’s death, England concerned itself with what it viewed as a more threatening menace than Knox’s monstrous women. The controversy over male absolute rulers and subsequent civil war overshadowed the few women who had dared to be queen.

63 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Manuscripts Sources:

BRITISH LIBRARY

Additional Manuscripts 12513 Partial copy of Henry Howard’s “Dutifull Defence” 15891 24652 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women” 6298

Cotton Manuscripts Titus C VI Henry Howard’s Letters and Papers Caligula C III Letters and Papers, 1571- 1581 Caligula C IV Letters and Papers Relating to Scottish Affairs, 1572-1575 Caligula C VII Letters and Papers Relating to Scottish Affairs, 1582-1583

Harleian Manuscripts 180 “Discourse Concerning . . . 6257 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women” 7021 Partial copy of Henry Howard’s “Dutifull Defence”

Lansdowne Manuscripts 813 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawful Regiment of Women

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

University Library Add MSS 9267 Partial copy of Henry Howard’s “Dutifull Defence”

Magdelane College Manuscripts Pepy’s lib. MSS 2191 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women”

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Houghton Library

64 826 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women”

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

Bodleian Library 616 Henry Howard’s “Treatise on Natural Philosophy 903 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women”

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

State Papers 10 Mary queen of Scots 12 1547-1623 15 1547-1623

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN

731 Partial copy of Henry Howard’s “Dutifull Defence”

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

Ogden 16 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women”

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Newberry Library Case MSS fj 5454.634 Henry Howard’s “A Dutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Women”

Printed Sources:

Alymer, John. An harborovve for faithfull and trevve subiectes agaynst the late blowne blaste, concerninge the gouernme[n]t of vvemen. wherin be confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to obedience. London: John Day, 1559.

65 Agrippa, Cornelius. Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. Translated and edited by Albert Rabil, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals. Translated by A.L. Peck. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943.

______. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. 23 vols. Vol. 21. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.

Becon, Thomas. An humble supplicacion vnto God for the restoring of hys holye woorde, vnto the churche of Englande, mooste mete to be sayde in these oure dayes, euen with teares of euery true [and] faythfull English harte. Strasburg: J. Lambrecht(?), 1554.

Bede. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Translated by Bertram Colgrave. Edited by Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1969.

Birch, Thomas. Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London, 1754.

Bodin, Jean. The Six Bookes of a Commonweale: A Facsimile Reprint of the English Translation of 1606. Edited by Kenneth D. McRae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Buchanan, George. Look on Luis

A Collection of State Papers Relating to the Affairs in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth from the Year 1571-1596. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: William Bowyer, 1759.

Goodman, Christopher. How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd. Geneva: John Crispin, 1558; reprint, Columbia University Press, 1931.

Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London: Richard Bentley, 1847.

Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 1998.

Jewel, John. An apologie, or aunswer in defence of the Church of England concerninge the state of religion vsed in the same. Newly set forth in Latin, and nowe translated into Englishe. London: Reginald Wolf, 1562.

Knox, John. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. Genevea: n.p. 1558; reprint, New York: De Capo Press,1972.

Leslie, John. A Defence of the Honour of the Right Highe, Mighty and Noble Princesse Marie Quene of Scotlande and Dowager of France. London: Eusebius Diczophile, 1569.

66 Lindsay, David. Ane dialog betuix Experience and ane courteour Off the miserabill estait of the warld. Paris: J. Petit(?), 1558.

Mulcaster, Richard. "Positions Wherein Those Primative Circumstances Be Examined, Which Are Necessary for the Training of Children, Either for Skill in Their Book, or Health in Thier Body." (1581).

Office, Public Record. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain Preserved in the Archives at Simancas [and Elsewhere]. 13 vols. London: Longman, & Roberts, 1862-, 1862-.

———. Calendar of State Papers Foreign Series of the Reign of Elizabeth. 23 vols. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1966.

———. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reigns of Edward Vi, Mary, Elizabeth, James I, 1547-[1625]. 12 vols. Nedeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1967.

———. Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots, 1547- 1603, Preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and Elsewhere in England. 13 vols. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register Office, 1898-1969.

Thorpe., Markham John, ed. Calendar of the State Papers, Relating to Scotland, Preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, 1858.

Secondary Sources:

Barker, Nicolas. "The Books of Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton." Bodleian Library Record 13 (1990): 375-81.

Beal, Peter. In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bossy, John. "The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism." In Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, edited by Trevor Aston., 223-247. New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Breslow, Marvin A., ed. The Political Writings of John Knox. London: The Associated University Press, 1985.

Cioni, Maria L. "The Elizabethan Court of Chancery and Women's Rights." In Tudor Rule and Revolution: Essays for G.R. Elton from His American Friends, edited by Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna., 159-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Collins, James B. From Tribes to Nation: The Making of France, 500-1799. London: Thomson Learning, 2002.

Coole, Diana H. Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism. Brighton, Sussex: WheatSheaf Books, 1988.

Dictionary of National Biography. 22 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Feenstra, Robert. "Law." In The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal, edited by Richard Jenkyns., 399-420. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Flech, Susan. "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women." The Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 805-22.

Frasier, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. New York: Random House Inc., 1969.

Greaves, Richard L. "Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting Perspectives." Journal of British Studies 22 (1982): 23-34.

———. Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press, 1980.

Hammer, Paul J. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, 1585-1597. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Harris, Barbara J. "Women and Politics in Early Tudor England." The Historical Journal 33 (1990): 259-81.

Harris, Sir Nicholas. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G. London: Richard Bentley, 1847.

Hoffman, Daniel L. The Status of Women and Gnosticism in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Dyfed, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.

Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.

Jordan, Constance. "Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women." Renaissance Quarterly 36 (1983): 181-201.

———. "Woman's Rule in Sixteenth-Century British Political Thought." Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987): 421-51.

68 Kelley, Donald R. "Law." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by J. H. Burns., 66-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Kelso, Ruth. Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinios Press, 1978.

Kingdon, Robert M. "Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550-1580." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 193-218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Laurence, Anne. Women and England, 1500-1760: A Social History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.

Levack, Brian P. The Civil Lawyers in England, 1603-1641: A Political Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Levin, Carole. "Queens and Claimants: Political Insecurity in Sixteenth-Century England." In Gender, Ideology, and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women's Public Lives, edited by Janet Sharistanian., 41- 66. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Levine, Mortimer. "The Place of Women in Tudor Government." In Tudor Rule and Revolution, edited by Delloyd J. Guth and John W. McKenna., 109-126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Lohr, Charles H. "Renaissance Latin Translations of the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle." In Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Jill Kraye and M.W.F. Stone., 24- 40. London: Routledge, 2000.

Love, Harold. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: Arnold Publishing, 1993.

______. "Patronage and Politics under the Tudors." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck., 21-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

______. Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1572-1588. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Maclean, Ian. The Renaissance Notion of Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

McKisack, May. Medieval History in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F.McManus. Half Humankind: Texts and Contexts of the Controversy About Women in England, 1540-1640. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Nott, G. F., ed. The Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey and of Thomas Wyatt the Elder. 2 vols. Vol. 1. New York: AMS Press, 1965.

O'Donovan, Joan Lockwood. Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991.

Peck, D. C., ed. Leicester's Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1985.

Peck, Linda Levy. "The Mentality of a Jacobean Grandee." In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck., 148-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

———. Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. London: Allen and Unwin, 1988.

Read, Conyers. "Lord Burghley's Househod Accounts." The Economic History Review, New Series 9 (1956): 343-48.

———. Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth. 3 vols. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925.

Richards, Judith. "Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor." The Journal of British Studies 38 (1999): 133-60.

———. "to Promote a Woman to Beare Rule": Talking of Queens in Mid-Tudor England." Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 101-21.

______. "Mary Tudor as 'Sole Queen'?: Gendering Tudor Monarchy." The Historical Journal 40 (1997): 895-924.

Scalingi, Paula Louise. "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516- 1607." The Historian 41(1978): 59-75.

Sessions, W.A. Henry Howard, the Poet Earl of Surrey: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Shephard, Amanda. Gender and Authority in Sixteenth-Century England. Keele, Staffordshire: Ryburn Press, 1994.

______.

Sigmund, Paul E. "Law and Politics." In The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols. Vol. 2: The Age of the Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Sommerville, J.P. "Absolutism and Royalism." In The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns., 347-373. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Sommerville, Margaret R. Sex and Subjection: to Women in Early-Modern Society. London: Arnold, 1995.

Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. Abridged Edition ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979.

Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Year's War. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Faber and Faber, 1990.

Tite, C. G. C. "'Lost or Stolen or Strayed': A Survey of Manuscripts Formerly in the Cotton Library." In Sir Robert Cotton as Collector: Essays on an Early Stuart Courtier and His Legacy, edited by C. J. Wright., 262-306. London: The British Library, 1997.

Warnike, Retha M. Women of the English Renaissance and Reformation. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Watson, Foster, ed. Vives and the Renascence Education of Women. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.

Wernham, R. B. Before the Armada. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1966.

Wiesner, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Woudhuysen, H. R. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts 1558-1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Wright, C. E. Fontes Harleiani: A Study of the Sources of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts Preserved in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1972.

71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Born into a military family in 1968, Anna Christine received the benefit of being able to travel extensively as a child and young adult, which helped nurtured a love for history. After attending high school in Beavercreek Ohio, Anna choose to work as a professional equestrion for several years before returning to Florida Southern College, where she graduated Magna Cum Laude in April, 2000, receiving her B.A. in History. While at Florida Southern, she was listed as an honor role student, named to the Dean’s list, listed in Who’s Who Among College Students, and was nominated for Honor Walk Student for the 1999/2000 academic year. Anna begin her master’s degree at Florida State University in August, 2000, working under Dr. Richard Greaves. She defended her master’s thesis in August, 2004. While at Florida State, she has presented at Conferences on Women and Gender, and is currently working as a Teaching Assisant while completing her Ph.D.