Notes 1 Introduction: ‘Friends of All Ranks’? 1. John Fletcher, The Maid’s Tragedy, 1.1.8–11, in The Dramatic Works of the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, ed. F. Bowers, 10 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 2.29. 2. See my ‘The “Running Masque” Recovered? A Masque for the Marquess of Buckingham (c.1619–20)’, English Manuscript Studies, 8 (2000), 79–135, p. 79. 3. Peter Lake and Steven Pincus (eds.), The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), p. 1. See also I. Atherton and J. Sanders (eds.), The 1630s: Interdisciplinary Essays on Culture and Politics in the Caroline Era (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), p. 3, on the ‘contested, controversial, and fragile’ 1630s. 4. Love Restored, 4–5. 5. Glenn Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 9 (esp. n. 26), and Nicholas Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy (London: Longman, 1992), pp. 1–5. 6. Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, Inigo Jones: The Theatre of the Stuart Court, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 1.1, 1.7, 1.11. 7. James VI and I, Basilicon Doron, cited in Stephen Orgel, The Illusion of Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), pp. 42–3. James VI and I used this analogy frequently but argued that because the people ‘doe gazingly beholde’, a monarch must be ‘precise in the discharging of his office’: see The Basilicon Doron of King James VI, ed. James Craigie, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1944–50), 1.163. For an interesting development of this perspective, see Stephen Orgel, ‘The Royal Theatre and the Role of the King’, in Patronage in the Renaissance, ed. S. Orgel and G. F. Lytle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), pp. 261–73. 8. Orgel, Illusion of Power, p. 40. 9. The phrase is Stephen Greenblatt’s: see ‘Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and its Subversion, Henry IV and Henry V’, in Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism, ed. J. Dollimore and A. Sinfield (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985), p. 45. On Burkhardt, see David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance, revised edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 4. 10. Martin Butler, ‘Politics and the Masque: The Triumph of Peace’, The Seventeenth Century, 2 (1987), 117–41, p. 118. 11. K. Sharpe, ‘Parliamentary History 1603–1629: In or Out of Perspective’, in Faction and Parliament: Essays on Early Stuart History, ed. K. Sharpe (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), pp. 1–42, p. 5. On the historiography of James VI and I, see Jenny Wormald, ‘James VI and I: Two Kings or One?’, History, 68 (1983), 187–209. 12. The core of the revisionist case was that the causes of the civil war were short-term and contingent, with few real ideological divisions in earlier 210 Notes 211 decades, but that the British state was dysfunctional fiscally and afflicted by religious tensions. Parliament was regarded as less effective, certainly less innovative, and much less active in seeking power or to curb royal power; the court was seen as more political, more effective and innovative. For a more elegant summary, see Ronald Hutton, Debates in Stuart History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 16. 13. Martin Butler, ‘Courtly Negotiations’, in The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque, ed. David Bevington and Peter Holbrook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 20–40, p. 27. 14. Butler, ‘Courtly Negotiations’, p. 27. 15. Jonson makes this distinction in Hymenaei, 5–20. The fullest discussion of this distinction is given in D. J. Gordon, ‘Poet and Architect: The Intellectual Setting of the Quarrel between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 12 (1949), 152–78, reprinted in The Renaissance Imagination: Essays and Lectures by D. J. Gordon, ed. S. Orgel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), pp. 77–101, p. 79. 16. Butler, ‘Politics and the Masque: The Triumph of Peace’, p. 113. 17. Butler, ‘Politics and the Masque: The Triumph of Peace’, p. 118, and Butler, ‘Courtly Negotiations’, p. 28. 18. Martin Butler, ‘Ben Jonson and the Limits of Courtly Panegyric’, in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. K. Sharpe and P. Lake (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994), pp. 91–115, p. 92. Pliny’s phrase (‘laudando praecipere, when by telling men what they are, they represent to them what they should be’) is cited in Bacon, ‘Of Praise’, in Essays (1625), in Francis Bacon, ed. B. Vickers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 443. 19. Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, ‘Introduction: After Revisionism’, in Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603–1642, ed. Cust and Hughes (Harlow: Longman, 1989), p. 4. 20. Thomas Scott, Vox Regis (1624), sig. E1v. 21. ‘Courtly negotiations’ were first named such by Cedric Brown, ‘Courtesies of Place and Arts of Diplomacy in Ben Jonson’s Last Two Entertainments for Royalty’, The Seventeenth Century, 9 (1994), 147–71, p. 147. 22. Richard Cust, ‘The “Public Man” in Late Tudor and Early Stuart England’, in The Politics of the Public Sphere, pp. 116–143, esp. pp. 130–1. 23. John Guy, ‘The Rhetoric of Counsel in Early Modern England’, in Tudor Political Culture, ed. Dale Hoak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 292–310, p. 294. 24. Cust, ‘The “Public Man”’, pp. 130–1; Guy, ‘The Rhetoric of Counsel’, p. 299. 25. David Colclough, Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 3–6, 120. 26. Bacon, ‘Of Counsel’, from Essays (1625) in Francis Bacon, p. 381. 27. David Colclough, ‘Parrhesia: The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Early Modern England’, Rhetorica, 17 (1999), 177–212, p. 207; Joad Raymond, ‘Perfect Speech: The Public Sphere and Communication in Seventeenth-Century England’, in Spheres of Influence: Intellectual and Cultural Publics from Shakespeare to Habermas, ed. Willy Maley and Alex Benchimol (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 43–69, p. 57, who both stress the shift towards ideas of propriety. Debora 212 Notes Shuger connects civility with reticence in an essay that makes a strong case for censorship as a function of ‘civil harmony’: see ‘Civility and Censorship in Early Modern England’, in Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation, ed. Robert C. Post (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1998), pp. 89–110. 28. Markku Peltonen, Rhetoric, Politics and Popularity in Pre-Revolutionary England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 6 and 63. Peltonen is quoting Ethan Shagan’s view in Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 29. Erasmus considered The Praise of Folly as the equivalent, if an oblique ver- sion, of his Education of a Christian Prince: see Douglas Duncan, Ben Jonson and the Lucianic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 37–8; on ‘bitter medicine’ and free speech, see Michelle O’Callaghan, The English Wits: Literature and Sociability in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 7 and 41. 30. Duncan, Ben Jonson and the Lucianic Tradition, p. 228, suggests only limited connections between masques and the Lucianic tradition. On Jonson’s wider links with this culture and the connection of his emphasis on ‘judgement’ and ‘wit’ to humanist dialectics between jocus and serium, see O’Callaghan, The English Wits, esp. p. 50. 31. Most of the Lucianic references in the masques are passing allusions to the Dialogues of the Gods (for example, Haddington, Oberon). 32. Julie Sanders, Ben Jonson’s Theatrical Republics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998), p. 2. Sanders provides an important qualification of the term ‘radical’ linking it to usage in the 1620s where it broadly means dis- agreement with current policies and shades into scepticism about monarchy and the extent and use of its powers. 33. Jonson, ‘Informations to William Drummond of Hawthornden’, 293, recounts how Jonson composed his poems initially in prose ‘for so his mas- ter Camden had learned him’. 34. Martin Butler and David Lindley, ‘Restoring Astraea: Jonson’s Masque for the Fall of Somerset’, English Literary History, 61 (1994), 807–82, p. 820. 35. Clare McManus, Women on the Renaissance Stage: Anna of Denmark and Female Masquing in the Stuart Court 1590–1619 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 18; Butler, ‘Courtly Negotiations’, pp. 33–6, highlights the tensions between the King’s pacific policies and the militarism of Prince Charles. 36. Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue, 305–6. 37. Title page for Hymenaei: or The solemnities of masque, and barriers magnificently performed on the eleventh, and twelfth nights, from Christmas; at court (1606). 38. ‘An Epistle to a Friend, to Persuade Him to the Wars’, 151; ‘An Execration Upon Vulcan’, 155; ‘An Epistle Answering to One that Asked to be Sealed of the Tribe of Ben’, 51–3. 39. Every Man In His Humour (F) paraphrases Florus, De Qualitate Vitae, ‘Consuls are made annually . only a king or poet is not born every year’ (5.5.32). 40. Sanders, Ben Jonson’s Theatrical Republics, pp. 3, 8, 67. 41. Cust, ‘The “Public Man”’, p. 123. 42. Cust, ‘The “Public Man”’, p. 116. Malcolm Smuts provides a parallel descrip- tion of Jonson as an ethical republican who ‘sees governance as ideally an Notes 213 exercise of human virtue in the service of the public good’ (‘The Court’, in Ben Jonson in Context, ed. Julie Sanders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 150). 43. ‘To Sir Robert Wroth’, 10.