explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157 brill.com/erc Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse Robert Imes University of Saskatchewan [email protected] Abstract In this article, I examine intellectual correspondences between two manuscripts that Richard Hakluyt (1552–1616) presented to Queen Elizabeth i in tandem in 1584: his well-known “Discourse of Western Planting” and his underappreciated “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics. I argue that Aristotle’s vision of the ideal political state as a materi- ally and morally self-sustaining system, as represented in the “Analysis,” serves as the philosophical foundation of Hakluyt’s recommendations in the “Discourse” that Eng- land pursue an aggressive policy of expansionist, colonial growth. Hakluyt describes colonialism as a panacea for England’s socioeconomic issues and as the means by which England might become self-sustaining in the manner of Aristotle’s ideal state. Keywords Hakluyt – Aristotle – discourse – colonialism – philosophy – Renaissance – England On 5 October 1584, clergyman Richard Hakluyt presented Queen Elizabeth with two ostensibly disparate documents: his “Discourse of Western Planting” and “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics.1 While the “Discourse” is a comprehensive * This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the J.B. Harley Research Trust and Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation; and The Liter- ary Encyclopedia. 1 Hakluyt, “Analysis, seu Resolutio Perpetua in Octo Libros Politicorum Aristolelis.” The Brit- ish Library owns the two existing manuscripts of the “Analysis,” which has never been pub- lished in its entirety. Although I am informed that the British Library currently has no plans to publish the “Analysis,” E.G.R. Taylor reprints most of the dedicatory epistle in Taylor 203. A complete facsimile copy of the dedicatory epistle serves as the frontispiece of Quinn’s Hakluyt Handbook. Only two sustained criticisms of the “Analysis” have been made, one by © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/23526963-04302002Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access <UN> Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 141 summary of the envisioned religious, economic, and socio-political benefits of establishing English colonies in North America, the “Analysis” is a para- phrased, complete Latin summary of the eight books of Aristotle’s text. While Hakluyt is chiefly known for promoting English colonialism by collecting and publishing compendia of historical and contemporary travelogues, the “Dis- course,” like his compendia, is intrinsically intertextual; Hakluyt bolsters the persuasiveness of his arguments by citing dozens of English and European au- thorities. Although the “Discourse” has achieved widespread critical attention, the “Analysis” has not. Nonetheless, Hakluyt’s presentation of the “Discourse” and the “Analysis” in tandem is a matter of exegetical, intertextual significance. As David Armitage, the sole critic to engage this connection, albeit in pass- ing, writes, Hakluyt’s “Analysis” of Aristotle’s Politics “supplied the political and moral context within which he expected Elizabeth and her counsellors … to judge his proposals for English colonization.”2 To expand on Armitage’s assess- ment by clarifying specific points of intellectual correspondence between the “Analysis” and the “Discourse,” in this paper I present sustained readings of both texts and argue that Hakluyt’s colonialist recommendations are funda- mentally informed by the apex of Aristotle’s political teleology, his ideal of a self-sufficient state. In the “Discourse,” colonialism thus figures, primarily, as a means to make England materially and spiritually self-sustaining in the man- ner of Aristotle’s model polis, as represented in the “Analysis” of the Politics.3 A survey of Hakluyt’s involvement in England’s nascent colonial aspirations is necessary to establish the historical context in which he prepared his two documents. On 31 August 1583, three ships commanded by Sir Humphrey Gil- bert began their return voyage to England after formally taking possession of Newfoundland in Queen Elizabeth’s name. The contingent was the remnants of a larger, ill-fated fleet that had left England in early June on a voyage of con- quest and encountered severe weather and shipwreck on the way.4 Although Lawrence V. Ryan and another by David Armitage, in his book The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Although he does not examine the connections between the “Analysis” and the “Discourse,” Ryan notes that while the “Analysis” is occasionally mentioned in conjunc- tion with the “Discourse,” biographers and scholars tend to either ignore the “Analysis,” deem it inconsequential, or are mistaken about its nature (73). For example, Mancall mentions the “Analysis” several times, but he merely does so to remind readers repeatedly that the work is distinguished in its never being published (278, 301, 306). For a general synopsis of the “Dis- course,” framed in a biographical context, see Mancall, esp. 128–55. 2 Armitage, “Literature and Empire” 107. 3 Polis roughly translates to political community, body of citizens, or state. 4 For a longer discussion of Gilbert’s 1583 expedition, see Gosling 183–271. explorations in renaissance culture 43 (2017) 140-157Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 04:12:41PM via free access <UN> 142 Imes Gilbert’s annexation of Newfoundland, the first English possession in the New World, was a token of success for a voyage characterized by failure, the venture continued to have bad luck when, on 9 September, the returning ships encoun- tered foul weather and rough seas in the North Atlantic. Gilbert’s reckless deci- sion to remain aboard his diminutive flagship during the storm proved to be his undoing as, around midnight, fierce waves swallowed the ship, and he was lost. Gilbert’s death left several proposed expeditions in limbo, but English co- lonialists were without a leader for only a short time. On 25 March 1584, the queen granted Sir Walter Raleigh letters patent that gave him the right to “dis- cover, search, finde out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories, not actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by Christian People,” and to establish colonies in England’s name.5 In addition to the close relationship he enjoyed with Elizabeth, Raleigh was favoured for his diplomatic skills and ability to bind others to his cause. He had also been involved in Gilbert’s 1578 and 1583 voyages; Robert Lacey re- marks that while Queen Elizabeth’s principle contribution to the 1583 expedi- tion was a request that Gilbert not accompany the fleet, Raleigh raised funds, provided a ship, and convinced Elizabeth to allow Gilbert to depart.6 In April 1584, Raleigh sent two ships on a reconnaissance voyage to what would soon become known as Virginia.7 Before his explorers returned, Raleigh sought to attract investors to his enterprise; he especially desired a grant of public fund- ing from the queen. Raleigh needed a mouthpiece. John Dee, who had played a lead advisory role in the earlier voyages of Martin Frobisher, Gilbert, and the Muscovy Company in search of a Northwest Passage, and who had written ex- tensively on English colonialism, was absent, as the period from 1583 to 1589 was the time of Dee’s “enigmatic escapades at the Bohemian court.”8 Likewise, Christopher Carleill, Sir George Peckham, and Edward Hayes, all of whom had written notable discourses on England’s colonial affairs, were not chosen to be Raleigh’s chief propagandist. Instead, that role fell to Hakluyt. Hakluyt’s familiarity with the logistics of foreign trade and geographi- cal science made him an ideal advisor for expansionist projects. From 1577 to 1583 Hakluyt was an academic at Oxford University, where he lectured on geography and political philosophy. In conjunction with his responsibilities 5 Thorpe 53–7. Raleigh’s letters patent are almost identical to those granted to Gilbert in 1578, which are reproduced by Gosling 165–71. 6 Lacey 55–6. 7 The voyage was led by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe. See Lacey 62–3. 8 Sherman 8. explorations in renaissance Downloadedculture from 43 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2017) 140-157 04:12:41PM via free access <UN> Hakluyt’s Peripatetic Discourse 143 as an instructor, Hakluyt consulted with renowned continental geographers Abraham Ortelius and Gerard Mercator, published the narratives of Jacques Cartier’s discovery of the St. Lawrence River, and acted in an advisory role to both the Clothworkers’ Company and to Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsing- ham.9 In May 1582, he released a slim volume, Divers Voyages Touching the Dis- coverie of America, to publicize England’s colonial opportunities and promote Gilbert’s fateful voyage.10 Divers Voyages includes practical advice to potential colonizers, documents intended to support England’s territorial claims and to describe the coast of North America, and a list of commodities expected to be found. Hakluyt planned, at one point, to accompany Gilbert’s 1583 voy- age as an educated observer, but in the end Stephen Parmenius, a friend of Hakluyt’s from Oxford, went instead. The reasons for this substitution are un- known, but, as Parmenius perished along with Gilbert, Hakluyt was fortunate to be excluded. However, as G.B. Parks notes, Parmenius assumed that Hakluyt would be sailing with a later expedition, likely led by Carleill.11 This expedition never took place, and Hakluyt never saw America. Shortly before