---

Reading summaries / abstracts -- due from groups no later than the Thursday prior to the Monday class for which they are to be read -- will be linked to this page the day after they are received.

Note: An example of how this should be carried out is available; the article from which the example is taken is available on reserve at the library.

• Week 3 (September 23):

1. Loades, David. "Life at Court: Sports, Entertainments, and Pastimes." 96-113 in The Tudor Court. Bangor: Headstart History, 1992. [Completed by Group 1.]

The Royal court in the 1500's was a place of festivities such as gambling, jousting, music, and theatre Henry the VII and all royalty took part in gambling perceivably because they had an abundance of time on their hands. The court did not always lead by moral example and often came under scrutiny for gambling. Both men and women participated. Games such as blind mans bluff and charades were played serving as an aid for the advancement of romance. Over time these these and other games formed impromptu theatre where love songs were sung, poetry was written and read and the finest of clothing was worn.

Jousting was both a sport and entertainment developing into a pageantry full of romantic imagery followed by dancing. Dancing was one of the few events where physical contact was permitted between men and women in the court. Jousting was an international sport included at high status weddings, diplomatic banquets and seasonal celebrations. Jousters representing their countries would battle for international recognition. These matches would encourage interchange with Europe, bringing European royalty from overseas into England's court. Therefore, the court became a gateway for European culture to be introduced to England.

Open air sports such as bowling and tennis were played in grassed areas. Tennis was developed in England's court for the amusement Queen Elizabeth. Tennis was also used to settle minor debts.

All Tudors, except Edward, were musical. Even Henry VIII and Elizabeth wrote music, played instruments and sang songs in the court. As time went up to fifty male and female entertainers were hired on as regular staff. Being hired as a court musician was one of the few ways of moving up the ladder of status, especially for women. A musician, poet or actor could in fact gain independence and class elevation if they could prove themselves skilled in these arts. The court was also used as a place for musical education. By the mid 1500's with Elizabeth's influence music became very popular, many new instruments were introduced, and many distinguished composers were realized and the entertainment of the court became more Professional.

Drama became popular to the point of hiring "players." Their productions moved from love and comedy, to political and moral issues where cultural standards were often challenged from behind the actor's mask. By the late 1500's many outside theater groups had arisen and would come to the court to perform. The court was a forerunner for the arts. Much money was spent to make it's festivities a great successes. Court life expected nobility to play a part in it's culture. A culture where courtship was settled through entertainment, and politics through sports and the theatre. Thus the royal court was competitive, romantic, entertaining, educational and an essential part of the developing culture in the 16th century and onward.

2. Fox, Alistair. "Literary Patronage: The System and its Obligations." 11-24 in Politics and Literature in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. [Completed by Group 2.]

Fox's article deals first with the various means that those in the field of literature might use to attain patronage, which was virtually the only source of employment available to them during the Tudor period. The most desirable patron was the king, who was in the position to bestow many benefits on those who pleased him in their service. New Year's Day was traditionally a day on which those seeking patronage from the king would present themselves to him, though such solicitations could occur on any day of the year. One seeking patronage might also dedicate his works to the king, hoping to impress and gain employment in this manner. The king's chief ministers and other members of the royal household could also be helpful to those attempting to attain patronage, either by putting in a good word to the king or bestowing patronage themselves. Other important people who might aid in the pursuit of patronage were important church figures, who were often closely affiliated with universities, and who could act as "talent scouts," providing a means to promotion to the royal circle, and the nobility, who could similarly act as intermediaries or grant patronage themselves.

The article continues with an examination of the functions that literature produced under patronage needed to perform, first under the reign of Henry VII and then under his son, Henry VIII. Under Henry VII, writers were required to write a "new history" which emulated classical works and distinguished the Tudors in an historical framework. Secondly, writers were to produce literature which presented the royalty in a flattering light for special occasions, such as war victories, coronations and births. Similar works were to be written in support of the king at times when his reputation or political philosophy might have been in question. Thirdly, writers were required to write instructional works in the sphere of manners, conduct and morality, most often for members of court.

With the accession of Henry VIII came a drastic change in members of the king's household, Fox states, which brought a number of progressive humanists into his service. Although Henry VIII preferred literature which portrayed the "dramatic spectacle of jousting, pageantry, and entertainments" over the more politically didactic works that his father demanded, literature remained much the same as it had been before he had come to the throne. When his divorce became imminent, however, he had need for "men of letters" to support his cause by means of propaganda.

Fox concludes his article by describing the conventionality in literature that patronage produced, giving examples of 'clichéd' works which excessively compliment members of the royal family, often comparing them to people of virtue from classical literature and depicting them as individuals who have, or are capable of, recreating the Golden Age. Indeed, Fox shows, literature of the time was virtually formulaic, to the point that it is often difficult to discriminate one work from another, or to find the material in any way believable. Innovative material produced in this time was often a reaction to the patronage system. Many writers were dissatisfied with the basis on which they were judged when seeking patronage, which often depended on connections and praise, rather than talent; those who did secure a position in court were often dismayed at the hostile manner with which they were treated upon their arrival. Writing in reaction to the system, especially when combined with personal involvement, produced more imaginative works than those produced within the patronage system.

3. Waller, Gary. "Reading the Poetry of the Sixteenth Century." 1-33 in English Poetry of the Sixteenth Century. London: Longman, 1986. [Completed by Group 3.]

In the sixteenth century, poets wrote within and for the court, often as a mean for courtiers to gain access to the monarch. Due to political uncertainty, much of the poetry silenced real events, and the lyrics seldom captured the era's ambiance.

Robert Sidney, for instance, wrote most of his poetry while in exile trying to get back into the King's favour. Clearly, poetry was not merely a way to describe their lives, but was a means of social stabilization and control. To remain in favour, poets could not state any opposing opinions, and thus imaginative readers must search for these muffled voices in the poems' "dislocations" and "disruptions."

The poetry also reflected the existing patronage system. It changed under Elizabeth I's reign, since she insisted that the nobles and the courtiers rather than the monarch should reward the poets. Her reign, thus promoted works of religious or political persuasion, which underlines how the patronage system directed writers to socially or politically approved goals.

Although few poets published their work, some poems were collected in miscellanies. Tottel's Miscellany (1557) incorporated Wyatt's and Surrey's verse, and the Scottish The Bannatyne Manuscript (1568) included Henryson, Douglas, Dunbar, Lindsay, and Scott. Consequently, these miscellanies are important in determining the court's influence over the development of poetry.

Prior to 1603, the English and the Scottish courts were separate, and the Scottish court produced by far the most sophisticated poetry especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The most important Scots poet is Robert Henryson, but others like Gavin Douglas (the first to translate Homer into either Scottish or English) and Alexander Scott were also prominent.

Waller claims that the richness of the Scottish poetry reflected a political uncertainty that was covered by erotic lyrics, and their verse contained a brittle edge that few English poets at the time achieved. Common Scottish themes are those of absence, wandering and loss. Unforturnately, when James moved the Scottish court to England, it depressed Scottish literature for over a century.

With a few exeptions, the English poetry prior to the sixteenth century produced mainly court doggerel by poets like John Skelton, Stephen Hanes, and William Barclay. Today few critics view these as great poets, although some of Skelton's verse is still approachable. His Bouge of Court reflects on the rewards and corruption of court favour, while other poems attack the Church and Henry VIII politicians. Sir Thomas Wyatt, however, rose above this literary mediocracy, and he was the most compelling renaissance poet prior to the 1580s. While on the surface his lyrics seem to honour the regime, they are suffused with dark undercurrents, revealing the difficulty court poets had in finding a language in which to express dissatisfaction.

The last twenty years of the century were a time of conflict, and produced the most interesting poetry by people like Donne, Shakespeare, Sidney, Ralegh, Spenser, and Greville. Clearly, by the 1590s the poetry undergoes a change, which generated much experimental writing. Consequently, Waller states, "political conflicts within the court constitutes sixteenth-century poetry's most important characteristic," and readers must be aware of all undercurrents in seemingly innocent love lyrics.

4. Fox, Alistair. "John Skelton and The Bowge of Courte: Self-Analysis and Discovery." 25-36 in Politics and Literature in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. [Completed by Group 4.]

The realities of the patronage system come up against issues of personal happiness and morality in Alistair Fox's essay entitled "John Skelton and The Bowge of Courte: Self-Analysis and Discovery". John Skelton's reaction to his growing unease within Henry's Tudor court helped him to create an anti-court satire which doubles as an "instrument of self-analysis" (25). Fox sets a context for his thesis by providing information about Skelton's academic and professional background, focusing on the mystery of Skelton's career change from court tutor to priest. Since The Bowge of Courte seems to have been written around the same time that Skelton entered the priesthood, Fox suggests that Drede's perturbation is a reflection of Skelton's intensifying moral disdain for 'courtly' life. The poem becomes what Fox refers to as "an edifying moral exemplum" (27) for Skelton, in that it was written out of a need to reassess and understand his position as an employee of the court. Fox goes on to explore the notion that The Bowge of Courte can be read as Skelton's autobiography. To support this claim, Fox uses information provided in the poem to indicate Drede's likeness to Skelton, the similarity between the poem's setting ("Power's Key") and an inn in Harwich run by Skelton's friend John Power, as well as the correspondence between the time sequence of the poem and Skelton's own rise to courtly life. By identifying these parallels, Fox challenges the allegation that The Bowge of Courte is a mere compilation of clichés and/or empty generalizations.

Fox also examines "the rhetorical strategy" that Skelton employs to distance himself and his audience from his past. In reference to the Prologue for example, allowing the reader to recognize the flaws in Drede's narrative and the naiveté of his character becomes Skelton's call for the audience to participate in Drede's (and Skelton's, for that matter) quest for greater insight. Through the use of symbolism, puns, proverbs and irony, the audience is alerted to various implications and warnings that Drede does not sense. However, the end of the Prologue signals a shift in the narrative style; the reader is placed in Drede's position. According to Fox, the narrative shift is Skelton's attempt at seeking "sympathetic corroboration of his own developing viewpoint" (32), and offering ethical guidance to his audience. Fox continues his examination by exploring the effects of the personified vices in the work, suggesting that the device of personification allowed Skelton to represent his personal experience and present a didactic model. An additional reason for such personification is to demonstrate how constant exposure to vice leads to paranoia: a notion that Fox examines at length by using various examples from the text. The conclusion of the essay deals with the reader's "interpretative responsibility" to the poem (35). Fox suggests that it is the reader's duty to decide how much of the dream is true. It is also the reader's duty to consider what s/he should do if s/he ever finds her/himself in the same position as Skelton: neither Skelton nor Drede provide the reader with the answer. Skelton's "deep-seated ambivalence" (36) is thus revealed by his inability to provide any solutions for the reader. As summarized by Fox, "The Bowge of Courte is our earliest example in the early Tudor period of the complex new type of literature that would emerge as writers began to respond to rapidly evolving political circumstances" (36).

• Week 4 (September 30):

1. Norland, Howard B. "Medwall's Fulgens and Lucres." 233-43 in Drama in Early Tudor Britain, 1485-1558. Lincoln, NB: U of Nebraska P, 1995. [Completed by Group 1.]

According to Howard Norland's article, Henry Medwall's play, Fulgens and Lucres, is the first "purely secular play that has survived" and is the first dramatic presentation to focus on the disputation of nobility. This issue was especially relevant to King Henry VII's court where the majority of government men were appointed on the basis of merit rather than bloodline. Medwall was chaplain to Cardinal Morton who had risen through the ranks from a humble beginning as a lawyer. The play was performed before an aristocratic audience, placing Medwall in the tenuous position of politically supporting his master, while not offending the 'old' aristocracy. Therefore the political message was veiled by an "elaborate comic context" (235), while setting and characters served to distance the dramatic theme from the audience.

Two comic characters known as A & B function as the presenters, disclaimers and players. The characters deny all responsibility for the play and the players. This denial allows them to identify with the audience and to present the play as an illusion designed to provide entertainment and mirth. A & B also anticipate the possible reactions of the audience and are thus able to undermine any adversity with humorous interjections.

Although the A & B deny responsibility, they are very much part of the play. B's description of Cornelius' extravagance and concern with fashions serve to identify "him with the vice of the morality play" (237). They also denounce wives as either "shrews or whores" to contrast Lucres' virtuous image. Yet they both compete for the favor of Jone. The competition results in a low comic parody which makes the suitors seem ridiculous and emphasizes the autonomy of the woman being courted..

A & B also serve as incompetent messengers for Gayus and Cornelius, pulling the comedy onto themselves. However Cornelius is implicated in the garbled message to Lucres delivered by B, whereas Gayus' message was simply forgotten. The comedy and participation of A & B prepare the audience for the final judgment. The foreshadowing by B in the description of Cornelius serves to expose him as arrogant, superficial and recklessly extravagant as he provides his genealogy and promises of idleness in his final appeal to Lucres. In contrast Guyus reminds his audience that both Cornelius and he "cam of Adam and Eve."

Through the commentaries and comic parts played by A & B, the audience has been well seasoned to applaud Lucres' declaration, "For vertue excellent I will honoure a man/ Rather than for hys blode." To conclude the drama A & B discuss the outcome, emphasize the entertainment and express the play's instruction to favor the virtues of the 'new man' and scorn vice. Finally, caution prevails as the drama ends with the conventional apology of "no offense intended."

Norland concludes that by combining elements from Buonaccorso' "classical controversia with the wooing motif of folk drama, the debate of medieval poetry, and elements from the morality play, Medwall creates a new and distinctive dramatic form" (242), perhaps setting the stage for the introduction of formal comedy in early Tudor England.

2. Bevington, David. "Chaplain Medwall and the New Tudor Ruling Class." 42-53 in Tudor Drama and Politics: A Critical Approach to Topical Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968. [Completed by Group 2.]

With the emergence of the new Tudor monarchy, a new formula for political success was introduced. There was a need for a new man at court who could carry out tasks which were more intellectually based, rather than militarily. The ever present doctrine of rank remained, but the nobility were now required to prove their worth, their "gentilesse," rather than merely rely on their bloodline. A common man, because of his education and determination, could now reach higher position in court then was previously possible. With this new opportunity for advancement, tension naturally asrose between the "new men" at court and the aristocrats.

Medwall recognized this power struggle within Henry VII's court, and his approach to humanism in the play Fulgens and Lucrece displays his tendency toward political satire. He reveals a staunch aristocrat carried over from pre-Tudor era, contrasted with a witty, well-educated, well spoken, commoner politician. The aristocrats, armed with family names and noble blood-lines, remain resilient to the political advancement of the new men at court, yet they were no longer guaranteed high ranking positions, as they had previously, because of their noble names. Although they attempted to crowd the commoners out by sending their children to schools in record numbers, they were still forced to compete for positions which were awarded more and more to those who displayed competency, rather than social rank. With the onslaught of the "new man" in the court, the aristocrats turned to other endeavors such as tending to their estates and taking on important positions away from the centre stage of the court; positions such as military commanders, ambassadors, lords lieutenants, and magiustrates. The time of the Tudor reign saw the most movement, both upward and downward, in the nobility, more than in any other period prior to the nineteenth century.

The "new man" wished to put forth the ideas of humanism, with the aid of humanist writers. They supported a hierarchy of order and degree, yet placed emphasis on education and professional ability, and the innate qualities of "gentilesse, which could be found in both the commoner and the nobility." Medwall, a member of the clergy, used his church position combined with his education as an access to bureucratic power. Fulgens and Lucrece combined his secular ideals with a distinctly English take on humanism to endorse the new Tudor gentry.

Medwall strays from his original source, a far more inflammatory play by the Italian Buonocorso, and adapts the play to suite his own agenda. He shows, in Fulgens and Lucrece as well as another work entitled Nature, that in order to earn their place in the royal court and to then maintain that position, men must emulate and govern their behaviour by Christian values. It is also made clear that although the "new man" was advancing in increasing numbers, he was also under close scutiny. Any occassional slip up was magnified by the very fact that his newness called special attention to him. Medwall's satire in both Fulgens and Lucrece and Nature, according to Bevington, is most biting in his response to the aristocratic obsession with expensive garb, and their desire to display blatantly their wealth. Medwall had Henry's approval on this point, for the king was known for his frugality. While endorsing humanism and the "new man," Medwall is careful not to look down upon the nobility. He balances his political satire with elements of humour to soften the edge of his wit. This use of humour to a modern audience would seem to be comic relief against the rest of the play. According to Bevington, a Tudor audience would have been engrossed in the political issues, which were a far more volatile subject.

In Fulgens and Lucrece and Nature, Medwall advances the cause of the common man. He expounds upon their value and worth in the royal court, yet warns against deviating from traditional Christian values and virtues. Through his ridiculing of extravagance and excessiveness, he defends a policy of taxing the wealthy for the benefit of the public well. He carefully satirizes the aristicracy, treading a narrow margin of humour and ridicule to avoid offending those he is attacking,and still reveal his final purpose of displaying the benefits of the commoner advancing in the courts.

• Week 5 (October 7):

1. Spearing, A.C. "Wyatt as Petrarchan Translator." 300-6 in Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. [Completed by Group 1.]

Many of Wyatt's most successful poems are translations from Petrarch. Petrarch was a great Italian poet who had an active cult following during Wyatt's lifetime. Petrarch was considered to be a "modern classic" and Spearing says he was a far superior poet to Wyatt. In translating Petrarch, Wyatt was not trying to be fashionable as much as he was using Petrarch's original material and adapting it for his own needs.

Chaucer is said to be the first English poet to translate Petrarch. He used one of Petrarch's sonnets in Troilus and Criseyde. The sonnet he used displays common paradoxes about courtly love such as "sweet torment" and "shivering at midsummer." Chaucer altered the style but retained the form. The Chaucerian tradition translates many images and paradoxes used by Petrarch but they did not reflect Petrarch's "comparably subtle, concise, mellifluous (def=sweetly or smoothly flowing) and closely argued style."

The first English sonnets are Wyatt's translations of Petrarch. There are said to be sixteen of these with only one exemplifying Petrarchism wherein Wyatt did a line by line close translation although he did alter the last line. Wyatt added a Medieval or Renaissance tone to his translations. Spearing says Wyatt "tends to reduce philosophical generalization to individual experience" which in turn simplified Petrarch's "intricate and difficult stanza scheme." Spearing makes reference to Petrarch's Rime 206 and Wyatt's "Perdy, I sayed hytt nott" (#158) to justify his interpretation. Wyatt borrowed general arguments and certain images from Petrarch and then changed them to serve his own purpose. Petrarch's puns and many other fundamental elements were often completely lost in the translations and Spearing gives examples of these to support his thesis including reference to Petrarch's Rime 269 and Wyatt's "The piller pearisht is whearto I lent" (#236).

Wyatt's translations reflect "the coexistence of two conflicting tendencies" often associated with the Renaissance: "imitation and individualism." Wyatt imitated the Petrarch style to exercise his own lyrics. Spearing goes so far as to label Wyatt a predator, implying that Wyatt would use Petrarch's poems to foster his own poetry. "He is determined to seize the Italian source and force it to his own purpose - as it were, to ravish it." Spearing continues to say that Petrarch's superiority endures and that although Wyatt tries to recreate Petrarch's work he is unable to destroy the original power and essence of Petrarch. Spearing says this is exactly what Wyatt needed -- "a source that will both provoke and resist the attempt at appropriation." Therefore, Wyatt's translations leave the reader with a sense of ambiguity that in itself can offer an element of intrigue.

Spearing concludes with a lengthy comparison between Petrarch's Rime 98 and Wyatt's translation "Though I my self be bridilled of my mynde" (#27). Spearing elaborates on how Wyatt's translation totally alters the meaning of the original sonnet by Petrarch. It is even suggested that the uncertainties that Wyatt introduced into sonnet were intentional and that Wyatt was trying to create tensions between interpretations.

In summarizing how and why Wyatt adapted his source, Spearing says "Wyatt, characteristically, has wrenched Petrarch to his own purpose, a purpose that centres in his own inner life; but at the same time, and equally characteristically, he has been unable to resist Petrarch's argumentive structure, and has found in his chivalric fiction a more varied and interesting means than he could have invented for himself of articulating the world of his own mind."

2. Waller, Gary. "The Englishing of Petrarch." 76-93 in English Poetry of the Sixteenth Century. London: Longman, 1986. [Completed by Group 2.]

English lyric poetry of the sixteenth century is composed of fragments of many prior sources, but, according to Waller, no influence is as undeniable as Petrarch's in mediating the relationship between language and sexual desire. Petrarch's basic model, modified by English poets, had such a powerful influence due to four main factors. First, its adaptability allowed for numerous interpretations, giving it a "reader-centered" nature. Second, it provided not only a means of expressing love and admiration, but also a study of domination in relationships. Third, it utilized paradox to explore the psychology of love; the object of the poet's desire is the unattainable means of completing his identity. This leads to the last characteristic of Petrarchanism: the constant redefinition of personal identity and recession of goals of the self.

The adaptability offered by Petrarchanism allowed the English to develop a very changeable discourse of erotic desire. They developed their own intricate idiom of love within the expressive possibilities of poetry which leaked into the political world of the court. The presence of the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth, upon the throne led to a transference of the idiom from a purely poetic mode to one which was political because of Elizabeth's encouragement of her male courtiers to relate to her within a context of Petrarchan love.

Elizabeth's adaptation of the Petrarchan power structure of control and domination in dealing with her courtiers highlights the dynamics of power within Petrarchanism. Normally it would be a case of the poet/lover attempting to dominate the object of his love via the language of poetry, but Elizabeth turned her position as a woman to her advantage by having her courtiers relate to her in this controlled manner. In Petrarchan poetry, however, the focus is not simply a woman worshipped; she becomes the muse, the precursor of divine love, and she is the excuse for the poet to display his rhetorical ability.

The real focus of Petrarchan poetry is not the woman herself, as it appears on the surface, but rather the poet. Typically, after cataloguing her physical charms, the woman's paradoxically "hard heart" leads only to suffering in the poet. Puzzled over his self-flagellation, the poet usually represents Petrarchan love as a torture of frustration. To gain, actually, the woman's love would, in a sense, render the poem null and void. Within the larger scheme of Petrarchanism, the woman acts as a catalyst for the poet's self-definition in a world where he lacks a fixed identity.

The "self" in sixteenth century poetry is a slippery question. In the formal world of a royal court, the self of the courtier is highly subject to the winds of favour and fortune, and is created rather than given. Petrarchanism offered a context in which a courtier could fashion a self out of restlessness. While this Petrarchan "I" appears stable when viewed in isolation within one sonnet or lyric, a larger look reveals a radically decentred "I" only able to find solace in language. The more this "self" writes, the more words become frustration. The idealized woman constantly recedes and this becomes her role--to frustrate the guarantee of an actualized "self" for the poet.

The editorial layout of Petrarch's Canzoniere, seen as "fragments strung together like pearls on an invisible strand" by John Freccero, further accentuates the absence of a centre. The sonnets can be read in a random order and approached in somewhat of a "cubist" way, or they can be arranged in a sequence which suggests development or narrative continuity. What really makes a sonnet collection cohere, argues Waller, is the freedom it offers the reader; a sonnet collection should not be arranged like a novel of play because its intrinsic excitement lies in its unpredictability within a certain set of Petrarchan parameters.

The first major impact in the Englishing of Petrarch begins with Wyatt and Surrey, who began experimenting in the Petrarchan manner. From then on the increasing interest in the Petrarchan mode can be traced through many other poets. An important problem faced by Wyatt and Surrey was adapting Petrarch's sonnet to English. The English sonnet eventually became much more structured and logical than its Italian predecessor. The Tudors used this far more structured form of poetry primarily to display their humanist ideals and oratorical capacities in the hope they would find employment in the court.

3. Thomson, Patricia. "Wyatt and Surrey." 1-20 in Christopher Ricks, ed. English Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674. London: Sphere, 1970. [Completed by Group 3.]

Patricia Thompon claims that although Wyatt and Surrey may represent a new poetic era, much of their style is reminiscent of John Skelton. In her comparison and contrast of Skelton, Wyatt and Surrey, Thomson states that "the history of English poetry during the last two decades of Henry VII's reign has as much to do with the past as the future." "Garland . . . of laurel" is similar to Wyatt's work in the Collected poems. The poet's similarity exists in that they are both complaints in late medieval plain style, and are almost identical in tone -- delicate and song like and much suited to the sophisticated, poetical and musical circles of the king.

Wyatt also seems fond of Skelton's rhyme royal stanza, and all three poets share lyrical heritage; traditional ways of thinking about (and idioms for dealing with) major topics of love -- of which all three wrote profusely. While all three are undeniably similar, only Wyatt and Surrey have been called the "avant garde" of early Tudor poetry. The medieval laureate manner found in Skelton's work was not present in either Wyatt's or Surrey's. Their work was much more simplistic and monosyllabic.

Wyatt's satiric poem,"Myne owne John Poynz," launched a new English satiric form, that of presenting the point of view of an individual and expressing that individual's personality. Like the satires, Wyatt's penitential psalms further the sense that courtly poems were exclusively light and amorous. They reflect and inwardness in man's relationship with God; the repeated words, ideas and sentence structure characterize the opening of the sixth psalm. The poetry is dramatic rather than lyrical, and expresses David's personal struggle acted out in a continuous battle. Thomson states that Wyatt and Surrey "excavated the best out of medieval plain manner and left the rest behind."

Poetry during this era has many similarities with the past, but also it differs as it changes with the future. Time honored forms are not longer adhered to as evidenced by Wyatt's emergence as the first English lyricist with distinctive personality and mannerisms. He is not a visual poet, but produces good effects with sense and emotional tone. Wyatt was also the first poet to ust the work of Plutarch and Petrarke, although Skelton frequently "name dropped" during his writings. Another first for Wyatt was the use of the french rondeau, and the italian strombotto and terza rima.

Influenced by the spirit of humanism, copying became a common employment with the new poets such as Wyatt and Surrey, but was frowned upon by the "established older poets" - Skelton among them. Surrey was actually the preferred poet of the time because his ideas and sentences were clearer and presented with smoother rhythm. Surrey borrowed much of Wyatt's form and words but introduced additional rhymes into English sonnets, replacing Wyatt's ABBA ABBA with the deceptively easy ABAB ABAB rhyme scheme.

Puttenham and Ascham agree that Surrey finds a parallel for the unrhymed verse of the classical poets, resulting in a rather strange metre. Although a Scots poet, Gavin Douglas, had already translated Virgil it was Surrey who was applauded as the first Englishman to translate the fourth book of Virgil.

It is apparent from the readings that both Wyatt and Surrey were extremely popular during the sixteenth century, a popularity which grew after their deaths largely due to the ability to print their works. One of the main texts important to their work and popularity was Tottel's Miscellany.

4. Saunders, J.W. "From Manuscript to Print: A Note on the Circulation of Poetic Manuscripts in the Sixteenth Century." Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society 7.5 (1951): 507-28. [Completed by Group 4.]

By presenting an overview of how a literary work moved into print, J.W. Saunders attempts to put the relationship between the 16th century poet and the poet's manuscript audience into perspective. Saunders organizes his article by exploring three main stages in a poem's "journey" to publication, and entitles these stages "The Source," "Transmission" and "Into Print." By identifying these three stages in his analysis, Saunders offers a detailed and "candid" picture of the publication process.

Under the heading, "The Source," Saunders sets a context for his examination by emphasizing the role poetry played in the 16th century. He contends that Castiglione's work, The Book of the Courtier was very influential during this time; and since it depicted the Courtier as "a man of letters . . . experienced in writinge both rime and prose" (508), Saunders suggests that society's interest in poetry was partly due to the fact that it endorsed Castiglione's beliefs. Citing various examples, Saunders goes on to explore poetry's function as a "general medium of communication of experience" (509), and then concludes his contextual examination by stating that poetry was important during this period because it helped to establish a poet's "claim's to gentility and patronage" (510).

The article continues by exploring the source of manuscript circulation. According to Saunders, after the poet composed his/her work, the manuscript would circulate amongst his/her community in various ways. Often, the poet's manuscript would be passed around and read by a group of friends, then passed on to other friends in other literary gatherings. Saunders emphasizes that during the circulation process the manuscript would appear in many different Courtly groups, from university and religious circles to antiquarian societies and the country homes of the nobility. He further suggests that the poet's inspiration would often result from such literary gatherings in that the various members of these groups would suggest themes for the poet to write about. By determining a manuscript's circulation pattern then, Saunders intimates that one may discover the inspirational source of the manuscript's contents.

Under the heading "Transmission," Saunders addresses the writing process itself. He discusses in detail many methods of transmitting one's work to paper, and the proper protocol associated with the transmission process. Various copies of one's work were often made so that more than one copy was available, and by emphasizing this Saunders succeeds in bringing the "public" nature of each poem to the reader's attention. Specifically, because so many people would read the various copies of the poet's work and make emendations, the poem would eventually come to resemble a "public document" more than the poet's original composition. Thus, using various examples, Saunders goes on to reveal the poet's lack of control over the revisions made to his/her work, noting that each new copy of a transcript was probably "further away from the original and any strict standard of accuracy" (518).

In the final section of his article entitled "Into Print," Saunders focuses on the importance of a poem's marketability and the a priori rights of the printer. Once a manuscript was registered with the "Stationer's Company," the printer had full control over the work: the poet was no longer a part of his/her composition. Saunders describes the often unscrupulous practices of those involved in the publishing process, suggesting that the publisher's "quest" to make each work marketable resulted in poetry of "extraordinary sameness and insipidity" (527).

In his conclusion, Saunders reiterates the amount of transformation that a poem went through in order to be published. He refers to the practice of circulating manuscripts as a "tale of decline and fall" (528), and contends that the poetry that has resulted from this common 16th century process is greatly deficient in both value and relevance.

• Week 6 (October 21; no class on Thanksgiving, October 14):

1. Spearing, A.C. "Wyatt's Poetic Role [and] Wyatt as Courtly Lyricist." 278-300 in Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. [Completed by Group 1.]

In "Wyatt's Poetic Role" Spearing identifies Wyatt as a gentleman poet because his poems were not written for material gain or prestige. Unlike Skelton, Wyatt did not write poems to honour people or celebrate public occasions. Wyatt was not so much a servant of the court as he was an actual participant in the courtly life. He did write occasional poems regarding public events such as the fall of Thomas Cromwell and the execution of those alleged to have had adulterous relations with Anne Boleyn, but the responses they record are essentially private. Wyatt's poems circulated in manuscript collections among a small circle of friends within his social class and were not published until after his death.

Wyatt's poems were the beginning of secular poetry expressing "isolated moments of personal emotional experience." Although he did translate from Latin, French, and Italian, Spearing says Wyatt was not trying to attract attention with his poetry. "There is no Chaucerian name-dropping, no Lydgatean moralizing, no Skelton bandying of quotations and technical terms, no scholasticism, no encyclopaedism, no informativeness, little classical mythology, no sustained allegory, almost no personification, no elevated diction, no amplification." Wyatt's poetry was very different from his forerunners and Puttenham says Wyatt belonged to a new company of courtly makers in the latter part of Henry VIII's reign. Wyatt's poems have no muses (except the homely Kentish muses of his first satire), no appeals to Apollo, no apostrophic prologues, and seemingly no connection to literary traditions (aside from translations).

Wyatt's poems are fairly serious and somber. Spearing says his source of understanding lies in what he actually experienced and he did not idealize of imagine beyond his own private reality. Wyatt does not claim or seek inspiration from outside of himself, and does not indicate cosmological beliefs or practices. In many of his lyrics he does characterize himself as a lutanist, but the lute, like the lady, does not inspire the poet (see "Blame not my lute" [MT CCV]).

Wyatt's poems speak directly to the lady as an equal and the poems indicate negotiation and rivalry between the two. Without inspiration and without grace the poems become declarations of justice. Wyatt's poems display a change in the conception of the nature of love. The expectations of lovers have become more materialistic. A lover gives to another and fully expects a reward.

Wyatt's translations were independent efforts and therefore they introduced new styles and techniques to English poetry and, although he rejected Chaucerian traditions, his work encouraged a renewal of interest in the forms and techniques of poetry. Wyatt introduced new patterns of sound and rhythm, new forms, new shapes that essentially invigorated "poetic thought."

In "Wyatt as courtly lyricist," Spearing elaborates on Wyatt's poems. In general, Spearing believes that Wyatt's translations are his most interesting poems and it is in these that Wyatt displays an idea of literature as "work of intrinsic and lasting value." As said in another abstract, Spearing says Wyatt shows little sign of being a powerful or original thinker, and he was dependant on the use of sources and models for "density and continuity of discourse."

In regards to his many other poems, it is suggested by Spearing, John Stevens and others implied that these are not literature at all. The poems are simply a sympton of certain social activity. Therefore, it is implied that the poems are not deep or intellectually demanding. They are personal reflections.

Spearing then deals with some of the difficulties in reading Wyatt's poems. It is difficult to identify whom the poem addresses as well as getting even a sense of the identity of the poet. Perhaps Wyatt is so ambiguous out of malice towards the recipient or out of a need for security, considering Henry VIII's unpredictable actions. Love can be deadly inside and outside! or, as Spearing says, "death-terrifying reliteralization." Because the identity of the lady is so masked, it may only be revealed at a poetry ready when a lady blushes and the listeners recognize it. Spearing says this then means the poem's meaning is not realized by words but by the blush and the eagerness of listeners to detect it.

The language of Wyatt's poems isusually bare, plain, unspecific, and the particular situation and emotions concerned are often indicated only in the vaguest terms as "Suche happe as I am happed in" (MT XXXVI). Stevens calls the courtly lyric "drab lifelessness" and Mason says they are not even poems but the combining of conventional phrases and set forms without the slightest trace of poetic activity. Spearing then indicates a rebuttal of these criticisms, but before he defends Wyatt's work he continues with criticism.

Spearing says to read all of Wyatt's poems is a dispiriting task because of the monotony of the subject matter: poem after poem is a demand for attention to the speaker's self-enclosed misery. The unhappy lover theme becomes stifling, narrow, and prison-like. There are very few poems that go beyond the lover's grief, and if spatial geography is identified, it is only in reflection of the speaker's grief. The removal of cosmic connections leaves "only man in a meaningless hostile world."

"The secular lyric is constantly subjected to unpredictable and inexplicable changes of situations. That force that brings about these changes is sometimes personified as Fortuna in the traditional way (MT LXV) but Wyatt generally has nothing to say about Fortune, because he has no larger scheme of thought to fit her into. There is nothing to carry his speakers beyond the narrow limits of their own subjective experience. The ground of value and the source of liberation from misery are to be found only in personal integrity, which the speaker often asserts in himself but rarely finds in others. Wyatt's 'trouth' has no explicit connection with any structures of philosophical of religious thought that might help to place individual experience intelligibly in relation to God, the world, and history. The conclusion is inevitably pessimistic."

Spearing says the egotism of Wyatt's poems can feel oppressive. On rare occasions he does include ideas and images of his lover but only if it will extend the show of his suffering; her tears leave him with a wet neck! ("The teres fell in my nekke" [MT XXXVIII]).

"Constraint, constriction, frustration, being clogged and fettered," these are the characteristic experiences, and much of the imagery is full of futile action -- striving against the stream (MT XCI and LVIII 5-6), climbing rotten boughs (MT XIII 14), and holding the wind in a net (MT VII 8). Unlike Chaucer, Wyatt is unable to introduce compassion and empathy into his poems; therefore, there are no resolutions.

Spearing leaves his positive points for the closing. He says that Wyatt showed an ability to use syntactical and metrical ordering of conventional phrases to create his sober style. Wyatt purposely excludes emotions by using monosyllabic words, and very few metaphors so he could convey pain held in check. Wyatt used refrains "In eternum I was ons determed" (MT LXXI) in such a way as to yield complex meaning from simple and conventional language. As he alters the stanzas and uses a constant refrain, he is able to enhance the feeling of change. Because the refrain does not change, he creates a backdrop to highlight the change. Another example is given to show how Wyatt would alter a refrain that would contribute a variety of meaning and movement within the context of the poem "My lute awake" (MT LXVI). "The symmetry of its external patterning is not merely decorative, but it is the outward expression of a crisp and energetic argument."

2. Starkey, David. "The Court: Castiglione's Ideal and Tudor Reality." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 45 (1982): 232-9. [Completed by Group 3.]

In the early sixteenth century the courts of kings and princes in northern Europe and Italy became more uniform. There were personnel changes where leading courtiers were upgraded to resident ambassadors. The courtier was now an international figure (232). In April, 1528, Castiglione helped to further the increasing universality of the European courts by publishing the Book of the Courtier, which provided guidelines on court behaviour (232). This book was based on Brutus by Cicero. David Starkey's article claims that Sir Thomas Wyatt's satire addressed to Sir Francis Bryan challenges Castiglione's attempt to reconcile the contradictions of the court-system.

To begin with, Castiglione's the Book of the Courtier had Cicero as it's source, using his ideas which were themselves representative of Aristotle. The idea of citizens employing themselves in politics was important to Cicero, and Castiglione's did not dismiss this; however, he stressed a more rhetorical tendency: not only did the Book of the Courtier emphasise the value of courtier's political activity but it also stressed using persuasive speech (233). Persuasive speech not only included oration, but it also included straight-forward honesty. Castiglione was looking for the perfect courtier, and Cicero had been looking for the perfect orator. Castiglione wanted courtiers to win the appeal of their masters, but at the same time, to tell them the truth and not to do so in fear. According to Castiglione, the perfect courtier uses his rhetoric to "win the mind and favor of the prince he serves that he can and always will tell him the truth..." (233). The courtier thus attempted to reconcile the "irreconcilable of sixteenth-century culture -- humanism and the court, book learning and military prowess" (233).

In England, Sir Thomas Wyatt offered a significant critique of the Courtier with his satire addressed to Sir Francis Bryan (234). Wyatt was a politician, humanist, and scholar as well as courtier (like Castiglione was), and Starkey claims that "These two elements (the court and humanism), equally present in Wyatt and Castiglione, were the twin poles of sixteenth century culture" (234). In the satire, however, Wyatt challenges Castiglione's attempt to reconcile these polarities. Wyatt, although a courtier had bitterly rejected the court in many of his poems (234). The court was thought of as a more active political life, and humanism as a more meditative existence (234). They were both really thought of as quite different from each other, and in Wyatt's mind for example, melding the two together was difficult. In his second satire, Wyatt translates Castiglione, however in his third satire, he openly argues against Castiglione.

Wyatt constructed the Satire as a dialogue between a narrator (Wyatt) and Sir Francis Bryan. Through Bryan, Wyatt immediately establishes that the court is the only alternative for an ambitious man, and the remainder of the satire concerns correct court behaviour (235). Throughout the poem Bryan rejects Wyatt's ironical advice of dishonesty, servitude to old men, or the prostitution of sisters or daughters in order to rise in fortune. Bryan's rejoinder: "Next godly things, to have an honest name? / Should I leave that? Then take me for a beast!" (235), indicates, thus, an honourable person.

To fully comprehend the ambiguity of the satire one must be aware of Sir Francis Bryan's idiosyncrasies. He was a multitalented man with two distinct characteristics; he was an honest speaker who was not afraid of Henry VIII and spoke freely with him in "plain speech," and he had an immoral capacity that earned him the nick-name "the Vicar of Hell" (236). The real Bryan, therefore, contrasted against his moral persona, even to the point of following Wyatt's aforementioned ironic advice: both Bryan and his two sisters married for money, and this became the foundation for Bryan's career. Moreover, as Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, he performed "the vilest of services for one old or oldish man, Henry VIII" (236). The poem's ambiguity is complex, however, and in part the persona corresponds with the real man, since neither attempted to curb his honest speech. This doubleness, Starkey claims, is especially clear when the Satire's persona wants to protect "his honest name" (237). In reality, Bryan's nick-name, the Vicar of Hell, was the epitome of dishonesty, yet, he was also admired for his honest speech.

Starkey indicates that Bryan's honest rhetoric coupled with his ability to amuse the King made him an enemy of Cromwell who wanted to insulate Henry from unregulated access. Bryan's use of plain speech was an attempt to catch the attention of Henry VIII, but he also used it to help his friends. He was more or less able to manipulate the King on occasion, and others eventually began to want his services. He became a "marked man" (236). Cromwell disliked Bryan and did not want him so able to talk to Henry VIII. Bryan also owed money all over the place, and Cromwell had had to come to his rescue which he resented. Bryan was starting to loose his political attractiveness. When Bryan finally bungled a diplomatic mission in Nice, therefore, Cromwell used the opportunity to persuade Henry VIII to take away Bryan's major office: the Chief Gentlemenship of the Privy Chamber (237). Wyatt, therefore, employed Bryan as a symbol of Castiglione's courtier. He had been the "perfect courtier to please" (237). There was an irony in this though, as Bryan was apt at using free speech, but his tongue became too loose, and this fault eventually destroyed him. Wyatt had even told him in person to watch his tongue, or he would get himself into trouble (238). The justification of pleasing according to Castiglione was the exercise of free speech. When Bryan used this right, however, it proved to be his undoing instead of his redemption (238). "By confronting, therefore, the never-never land of an idealised Urbino with the reality of the Tudor court, Wyatt has destroyed Castiglione's smooth moralisation" (238). Wyatt, in his satire tries to underscore the duplicity with which Bryan presents himself in reality, and how one should conduct oneself in court. A contradiction takes place in the reader's mind (and it is not known whether this was Wyatt's intent) between the Bryan persona of the satire and the reader's knowledge of the real Bryan (238- 239). This problem really destroys Castiglione's ideal "Urbino". The idea (found on the last line of the satire was for courtiers to do their jobs honestly, but not to expect anything in return [239]). After all, a Tudor courtier was really only the King's servant, but one who was emotionally involved in the court's matters. The job then, must have been a difficult one indeed, and how one could have perfectly carried it out was hard to see.

3. Anglo, Sidney. "Court Festivals and their Purpose." 98-123 in Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1969. [Completed by Group 4.]

In the chapter entitled "Court Festivals: Their Form and Purpose" of Spectacle, Pageantry, and Early Tudor Policy, Sidney Anglo describes early Tudor court pageants, and discusses the purposes behind such phenomena. He begins by examining the development of the tournament. Throughout Europe in the thirteenth century, he notes, the tournament increasingly evolved into a form of artistic expression; the air of "real combat" previously associated with such an event began to dissipate once elaborate costumery, dramatized speeches and staged altercations were introduced into the sport. Anglo attributes this change to the Burgundian court, a court known for "set[ting] the fashion for western Europe in matters of courtly magnificence, elaborate ceremonial and public spectacle" (98), and he continues by tracing the influence this new, "Burgundian" style of tournament began to have upon English festivals and entertainments.

After describing the "precedent-setting" wedding festivals of 1501 that accompanied Prince Arthur's marriage to Katherine of Aragon, Anglo discusses the purpose of such court events. While their primary function was, of course, "to provide escape from the generally tedious and limited round of court life" (104), they were also essentially political in purpose: instruments of "prestige propaganda" (105). Further, Anglo indicates that since a prosperous court was essential for a Renaissance prince, the sense of hospitality, generosity, and overall distinction associated with such courtly entertainments was interpreted as an external indication of true power.

Throughout his examination, Anglo uses examples from the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII to illustrate his points, and to demonstrate the forms taken by the early Tudor court pageants. Though opposite in style, persona and overall popularity, Anglo explores the two monarchs' similar reliance upon court festivities to gain diplomatic triumph. Henry VII, for instance, is described by Anglo as an unpopular, introverted and practical monarch, who cared little for unjustified expenditure. However, when it came to state occasions or other important events, Henry VII spent generously. In contrast, Anglo characterizes Henry VIII as being an extremely popular and talented monarch, recognized for his physical and intellectual prowess. And though Henry VIII's habit of marking significant events with elaborate festivities is viewed by Anglo as comparable to Henry VII's own diplomatic practices, Henry VIII's image as an enthusiastic participant in various events such as jousting and/or dancing noticeably improved the Tudor (and England's) reputation (123).

Woven into Anglo's various festival descriptions are examples of the types of events that courtly pageants were composed of. The most noteworthy type of spectacle was introduced during the wedding festivals of 1501 by William Cornish, whose production combined music, poetry, debate, combat, scenic display and dance. Anglo indicates that Cornish became the "deviser of court entertainments" (118) during the early 1500's, while his "multiform spectacle" became a common model for many elaborate festivals. Anglo concludes the chapter by addressing the artistic merit of such hybrid spectacles, by examining the differences between Henry VII, Henry VIII and the monarchs' motivations for hosting such lavish entertainments, and by noting the successful changes that had occurred in England under Henry VIII's reign.

• Week 7 (October 28):

1. Stevens, John. "The Game of Love." 154-202 in Music & Poetry in the Early Tudor Court. London: Methuen, 1961. [Completed by Group 2.]

Stevens' article deals with the concept of courtly love and what it entails. Courtly love, a social game of sorts, was played out through a number of roles by both males and females of the court, and was important in redefining non-church life. Stevens explains what he calls the "game of love" under four main ideas: reading, talking, acting and mores of love.

First, reading was a social activity in the court of love, providing the courtier with a chance to show his refinement and sensitivity to the object of his desire. Reading of love poems or books also set the atmosphere of romance in the court.

Second, talking was an art that could be developed by reading love stories and, indeed, through the act of courting itself. The game of love required decorum and eloquence which, when combined with the subject of love, provided a dramatic opportunity to display one's wit and cleverness through riddles, jokes, themes, questions and debates. Riddles in particular could be developed to exhibit the secrecy that was an essential theme in the game of love.

Here Stevens diverges to describe the symbolism of the "Court of Love." There are three main symbols involved: the social court, the court of law, and the feudal court. Stevens cites a fourth image which could be seen as a religious court. All of these contributed to a "formula of courtly 'pleyinge'" which leads him to his third focus, acting in the court of love.

Acting involved a number of activities such as dancing, games and sports. These activities provided an opportunity to portray one's manliness or femininity. Dance could portray a number of romantic notions such as youth, sexual desire, gaiety, social enjoyment and courtesy. Allegories, too, could be performed to allow actors to flaunt and flatter their personalities. Stevens then uses an episode from Froissart's Chronicle to demonstrate the contrived and coy role-playing that went on between a suitor and the object of his attention, and to also show the ice-breaking, flirtatious atmosphere that games created. Christmas, Valentine's Day and the May festival were all opportunities to carry out these encounters when the game of love was played.

Lastly, Stevens discusses the public nature of the game of love, and uses this to question what it actually reveals about the behaviour and manners of the court. The game of love was a means of honouring people, and behaving in a way befitting one's position and it prescribed the proper manner in which one should deal with others.

1. Thomson, Patricia. "Courtly Love." 10-45 in Sir Thomas Wyatt and His Background. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. [Completed by Group 3.]

Although the popular contemporary view of the Tudor love traditions is that they were insincere and conveyed no real feelings, Patricia Thomson argues against such belief. Though Thomson obviously agrees that most marriages were arranged -- when those concerned with the marriage were in a position to be motivated by political or economical qualifiers -- she argues against the conclusion that just because marriages were arranged there was no real feeling in any of them. Furthermore, Thomson stresses that the formalized courtly love conventions of the Tudor period expressed genuine feelings and shouldn't be dismissed as insincere conventions simply because they were convention. After all, "a non-literary example of love-convention is the giving of a ring as a pledge. No one thinks the feeling behind this unreal, much less insincere, simply because it has, for centuries, been the thing to do" (Thomson 13). In order to argue her case against the view of Tudor love conventions as insincere, Thomson examines several examples of Tudor love letters and love poems and then focuses specifically on the courtly love of the late stages of Henry VIII reign, paying close attention to the alleged love affair between Thomas Wyatt and Anne Boleyn.

Thomson gives a detailed account of what forms the love conventions of the period were generally presented as including letters, poems, and the allegorical pageants of which the figure of the Castle of Loyalty was extremely popular. Though courtly love was often implicit rather than explicit (indeed, most letters, poetry, and pageantry relied upon heavy, traditionalized allegorical use to convey their meaning) "the purpose was for the men and women to show themselves knightly servants and gracious mistresses" (Thomson 18). However, though the love conventions demanded a certain ambiguity of their practitioners this in no way inhibited the activity of the court. Indeed, "the promiscuity of Henry's court" is well known (Thomson 23). Thus, although the atmosphere of Henry's court wasn't entirely conducive to long and lasting love, there is much evidence to support that genuine feelings were being displayed through the traditional, allegorical love conventions of the court.

However, as to whether or not there existed any romantic involvement between Thomas Wyatt and Anne Boleyn, there is no clear answer. Thomson cites many sources which speak of the period and of the relationship between the two and they all point to some form of involvement. Unfortunately, they don't come to a consensus as to the depth of their relation. With near certainty can it be said that Thomas Wyatt and Anne Boleyn enjoyed some form of friendship before Henry became interested in Anne, but it is impossible to say how deep it went and whether or not it continued after Henry's marriage to Anne. Thus, Thomson uses the evidence of a genuine relationship between Thomas Wyatt and Anne Boleyn -- which was engineered and executed by using the love conventions of the day -- and also the very fact that Henry courted and then married Anne through the acceptable traditions of the time to support her claim that just because the love conventions of the Tudor period were traditional and conventional doesn't mean they were empty of any real feeling.

2. Spearing, A.C. "Surrey." 311-26 in Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. [Completed by Group 4.]

In his article entitled "Surrey," A.C. Spearing examines the life and works of the Earl of Surrey, as well as the classicism that informs Surrey's writing. Spearing begins by presenting a brief, biographical survey of Surrey's life, highlighting Surrey's imprudence, 'hot-headedness' and Protestant sympathies, and then continues by focusing upon various aspects of Surrey's poetry.

After the biographical survey, Spearing introduces the idea of classicism; he reminds his audience that Surrey has been most aptly described as "the first English classical poet," and re-articulates this idea by characterizing Surrey as "the earliest English poet in whom the classicism of the Renaissance is established and dominant" (312). Though Spearing prefers Wyatt's more ambiguous, irregular style of writing, he addresses the importance of Surrey's work in terms of its association with both "Augustan neoclassicism" and "the medieval past" (312). He then continues by exploring the presence of classicism in Surrey's work.

Spearing first locates a classical presence in the style of Surrey's writing, not only in relation to Surrey's poetry but also (and most predominately) in relation to Surrey's translations of other works. Spearing exemplifies this idea by indicating that Surrey pioneered the style of English blank verse: a style that he created while translating two books of Virgil's Aeneid. Spearing then explores the 'pros and cons' of the blank verse style, concluding with the statement, "Surrey's is perhaps the first verse in English where one can be sure that every line has been tested for elegance of auditory and syntactical pattern" (313).

Next, Spearing addresses the classicism that is found in Surrey's "historical sense," observing that Surrey's "imitation of Virgilian style" emphasizes the "difference and distance of the past" and exemplifies his "attempt to reconstruct a past culture imaginatively from within" (313): qualities that are indicative of the Renaissance. After exploring the historical content of one of Surrey's poems, Spearing continues with a look at Surrey's ability to write from a female perspective. He completes his exploration by comparing Surrey's ability to that of Chaucer, and by applauding Surrey for his understanding of both the male and the female psyche.

Lastly, Spearing locates the presence of classicism in Surrey's "concern for simplicity and consistency of overall effect" (316), noting that this quality is most apparent in Surrey's original poetry. Spearing goes on to contend that Surrey was consciously aware of such a quality and sought to include it in his work; as a result, Spearing suggests, Surrey's work often lacks the type of emotional complexity and ambiguity that accompanies a less 'contrived' work (such as one might find in Wyatt's poetry). Further, Spearing considers the way in which Surrey borrowed from various catalogues to provide a basis for his work, to add more interest, and to lend a sense of coherence to his writing. Conclusively, Spearing suggests that though the lack of complexity and unpredictability in Surrey's poetry is indicative of his inability to achieve poetic "greatness," Surrey significantly influenced the writing of later poets such as Spenser, Sidney and even Shakespeare.

Spearing reserves the last portion of his article to explore three of Surrey's most successful elegies. Primarily, he bases his exploration on the various aspects of Renaissance classicism previously outlined.

• Week 8 (November 4):
1. Lancashire, Ian. "The Interlude of Youth." 48-58 [and notes] in the "Introduction" to Two Tudor Interludes: The Interludes of Youth and Hick Scorner. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1980. [Completed by Group 1.]

According to Ian Lancashire’s “Introduction” in The Interlude of Youth, the play, Youth serves several functions and is more than just a moral allegory. Moral allegory also provides a framework for political satire by employing elements of a debate play, the traditional passion play and allusions to events and characters of the time.

The subject of the play is “the nature of man’s sin and redemption” (49). The character of Youth, considered to be twenty-five to thirty-five years old, was depicted in medieval illustrations, woodcuts and tapestries. In the play, Youth is surrounded by the virtues of Humility and Charity; the deadly sins of Pride and Lechery and the vice Riot which personifies lawlessness. These personifications are set in personal and social relationships that are used to portray moral generalizations.

The action of the play traces Youth’s progress from initial corruption to redemption and is an allegory of the internal conflict between good and evil. “Entrances, exits, friendships, quarrels and mischief-making . . . stand for psychological changes in Youth” (50). Charity is a grace from God representing God’s initial gift to all men of his son Christ. To save Youth from damnation, Charity seeks help from Humility, which is the precondition of all virtues according to an earlier work, Scala perfecconis, by Walter Hilton (90n). Youth rejects Charity and summons Riot, Pride and Lechery sinking himself further into vice and turns to courtly love and fornication which were considered “cupidity, the antithesis to Charity in the Middle Ages” (90n). After Youth supervises while Pride holds Charity down and Riot chains the virtue, only a second gift from God, Humility, can save Youth. Humility quells the personal vanity that inhibits Christian Love thereby allowing redemption. Youth then kneels before virtue to ask for God’s mercy showing that salvation is possible through the divine gifts of Humility and Charity.

However moral allegory does not explain why Youth changes his mind; this is demonstrated through debate. At first Youth’s ideal virtue lies in his body and he refuses to heed Charity’s warning, only after Humility has humbled Youth can he understand Charity’s explanation of atonement.

The conversion debate and the salvation allegory run parallel throughout the play, meeting in Charity who is likened to Christ. Charity’s essence is Christ’s love and his reference to the crucifixion of Christ foreshadows the fettering of his own arms and legs. By participating in the torture of Charity, Youth is like all sinners “one of Christ’s torturers” (52).

The play also contains “advice to a landed heir of noble blood and class about choosing reliable counselors for his estates” (53). Charity is the Tudor lord’s typical clerkish administrator and Riot is the “hail-fellow well-met.” Youth chooses Pride, the “worldly chapel gentlemen” rather than Charity’s brother, Humility, who represents devote divinity. In Riot’s company the feudal hierarchy is inverted as the master becomes the servant. For example, Youth pays the tavern bill despite Riot’s offer to do so; Lechery sways Youth from marriage to prodigality, depriving him of heirs and economic advantage. In contrast Charity combines advice with deference. The virtues counsel Youth to avoid pride, lawlessness and wasteful extravagance reflecting what the clergy advised the Tudor nobility.

Beyond the allusionary depictions of Tudor characters, there is a component of the interlude which satirizes Henry VIII. This is indicated in Youth’s description of himself and the allusions to royalty. Several examples are given to support this including the fact that the King called himself Youth in his own songs.

Allusions attacking the king’s self-conceit and wastefulness appear to have been justified by King Henry VIII’s actions at the time. The young King evaded France in 1513 to increase his inheritance which was used to renovate the court and to stage elaborate celebrations where the King could display his physique and talents. The vices that Youth initially embrace also parody Henry VIII’s own vices of gambling, lavish attire, and an array of scandalous love affairs.

Not only does the play satirize Henry VIII’s personality, it also functions as a political allegory. Henry VIII reversed many of Henry VII’s judicial measures, resulting in rioting and lawlessness, especially in the North. Another element of political allegory may also be the allusion to Thomas Wolsey through the role of Charity. Wolsey had the power to influence the King; he was the Royal almoner representing the king’s charity and he had a reputation of assisting the poor. Further, Riot’s threat to place Charity in stocks may allude to the stocking of Wolsey in 1500-01 by Sir Amias Paulet. Although Lancashire states that “Riot and his friends have no known political identities”(58), the notes to the Introduction speculate that Riot and Pride may have been two companions to Henry and his special aides in a jousting match. Also, one of the King’s yeoman ushers was named William Riote.

Composed in mid 1513, Youth assumes different roles to convey moral and political advice while satirizing, thus exposing the conditions of time in which it was written.

2. Herman, Peter C. "Henry VIII of England" 172-86 in The Dictionary of Literary Biography [Vol 132; forthcoming]. [Completed by Group 4.]

In the article, "Henry VIII of England," Peter C. Herman examines the influence that Henry VIII had upon the development of sixteenth century literature. By offering a chronological account of Henry's life, Herman not only provides a map of the literary changes that were occurring, but he also presents an engaging picture of Henry's eventful reign. After introducing his thesis, Herman begins with a cursory examination of Henry's childhood. Herman emphasizes Henry's broad humanist education, his early interest in humanism and the pleasure he gained from being amongst intellectuals: aspects of Henry's childhood that, according to Herman, prefigured the role Henry would later play as king. After offering an anecdote about Henry's childhood 'quick-wittedness,' Herman continues with a look at the early years of Henry's reign.

Herman recalls Henry's extreme popularity as both a monarch and a model courtier, and examines the influence that chivalric legend had upon Henry and his court. In emphasizing the great influence that chivalry had upon Henry, Herman establishes how poetry and politics began to meld together during his reign: Henry's more poetic, chivalric interests would often guide his political decisions, while his political power was often asserted as a result of his chivalric activity (jousting, masques, etc.). As indicated by Herman, "[Henry] made it abundantly clear from the moment that he became king that he intended to act out these [chivalric] roles on both the dance floor and the battlefield" (175).

Herman goes on to discuss Henry's lyrics, contending that they too blend poetry and politics. Though Henry's poetry is not exceptional, Herman explains that the "king's lyrics derive[d] from the tradition of courtly love"; and though they often focused on "erotic concerns," the political content implicit in the work provided one with a covert way of discussing "courtly ambition" and power (176). Herman continues with a brief examination of Henry's lyrics in order to exemplify his ideas.

In the next main portion of the article, Herman returns to the subject of humanism and discusses Henry's interest in promoting humanist reform throughout England. Henry was a great patron of various well-known humanists, and his generosity as a patron of humanism began to encourage others in power to follow his lead. However, though Henry was genuine in his support for humanism, Henry's patronage was not without its conditions. More specifically, Herman contends that "if a conflict ever arose between the demands of policy and the ideals of humanism, the latter [would] give way, not the former" (178). Herman continues by discussing the role Henry played in protecting the church; that is, Henry hoped that by protecting it, he would gain the church's support in promoting humanist reform (180).

The last part of the article deals with Henry's infamous marital and religious strife, and the dramatic decline of his popularity. After entering into a lengthy discussion of Henry's various marriages and his conflicts with the church, Herman outlines Henry's activities and interests during the last half of his reign, and speaks of the "tyrant" that Henry was transforming into. Though Henry had stopped writing by this time, Herman contends that the lyrics being written by Henry's "literary courtiers" (such as Wyatt and Surrey) reflected the ambiguity and sense of danger that pervaded the court. Herman concludes by summarizing the article, and by suggesting that even though Henry wrote very little, his presence was so influential that he can be considered "the presiding genius of early Tudor literature" (185).

• Week 9 (November 18; no class Remembrance Day, November 11):
1. Norland, Howard B. "Skelton's Magnificence." 175-187 in Drama in Early Tudor Britain, 1485-1558. Lincoln, NB: U of Nebraska P, 1995. [Completed by Group 2.]

Magnificence, by John Skelton, is the first extant morality play that is explicitly political. Skelton was a tutor to the future King Henry VIII when the Heir Apparent was young, but it is unclear as to exactly what degree Skelton's previous relationship with Henry VIII colours Magnificence. Scholars are unsure as to the exact dating of Magnificence but know that it was written sometime between the end of the fifteenth century and 1522. Magnificence is difficult to place chronologically because only one printed copy survives and the events and people in the play are presented in a generalized rather than a specific context.

Magnificence seems to be designed for a purpose similar to Speculum Principis, also by Skelton. In Speculum Principis, a short Latin treatise from 1501, Skelton advises the young Henry (and his brother Arthur) to lead a responsible, morally upright life based upon examples from the Bible and classical sources. Magnificence, in a sense, is a more enjoyable version of Speculum Principis; a version that entertains while it instructs.

It is here, in the question of Skelton's motive for writing Magnificence, that scholars have had the most difficulty in agreeing. The most literal reading of the play has the character of Magnificence as one based upon King Henry VIII, while all the vices represent a fractured image of Cardinal Wolsey. The main reason for this critical reading -- which reads onto the drama an attack on Wolsey and his formidable power at court -- is that Skelton, in the 1520s, started a satirical attack on Wolsey with such poems as, "Why Come Ye Nat to Court." This Wolsey-centered reading seems dubious, though, because no evidence exists to suggest that Skelton had any problems with Wolsey before about 1520.

Another reading of Magnificence seems more plausible if we assume that it was written between 1517 and 1519. By 1517, King Henry VIII had added to the Privy Chamber a group of men younger than himself who treated the king in a very casual manner. This group of fashionable young men quickly became known as "the King's Minions" and were given an official place in court in 1518. Wolsey and other conservatives were alarmed at the way the "minions" treated the monarch, and had more than half the minions ousted by 1519. If the play is based upon the "ousting of the minions", it becomes not an attack on Wolsey at all, but a warning to the king with the Wolsey character based upon Redress. At any rate, the play does represent the vices as fashionable young men like the minions who encourage the prince to pursue his desires while showing favour to a select group of friends.

According to Norland, the philosophical root-system of Magnificence seems to be firmly planted in pseudo-Aristotelian soil. A mid-fifteenth century manuscript by Ashmole, entitled Secretum Secretorum, takes the same tack as Magnificence; a king is encouraged to shun abundant expense and to let temperance rule over largesse. Secretum Secretorum, itself firmly entrenched in Aristotle's ethics, mirrors almost exactly Skelton's general principle in Magnificence regarding the importance of "measure."

Magnificence adopts the typical framework of morality plays for its didactic purpose, but alters the structure somewhat to compensate for the essentially political nature of the subject. The morality pattern of temptation, sin, repentance, and redemption is transposed into a courtly context and the emphasis becomes more socio-political in its new court setting. It is the society, says Norland, and not Magnificence himself that is the concern of the play. The implications for Magnificence are important only in their larger implications for the kingdom; for what a monarch did in Tudor times in his personal life always had real-life consequences for those governed.

The temptation of Magnificence borrows elements from contemporary Tudor drama, but, like the morality framework, these elements are adapted to the political agenda of the play: Magnificence expresses, for example, the classic hubris of the tyrant in soliloquy. The prince also attempts suicide when he succumbs to despair. When Magnificence is redeemed through Good Hope and friends, Redress actually reclothes the prince which, of course, represents the prince's regeneration. All of these elements are typical for the period, but their political ramifications are Skelton's own invention. Like other educational moralities from the more personal/redemptive tradition, Magnificence sought to instill particular virtues; but, by inviting an identification with contemporary figures (like King Henry VIII and Wolsey) it also attempts to define the appropriate roles of the monarch and his advisers. Instructions to political leaders was not new with Skelton, but his particular cloaking and modification of the advice was. The political morality play, pioneered by Skelton in Magnificence, became a very popular form after 1530 due to its inherent adaptability -- the same adaptability that Skelton took full advantage of in writing Magnificence.

2. Walker, Greg. "A Domestic Drama: John Skelton's Magnyfycence and the Royal Household." 60-101 in Plays of Persuasion: Drama and Politics and the Court of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
1. [That Completed by Group 2.]

John Skelton (1460-1529) was a poet and scholar who spent much of his life mainly at the margins of the Tudor Court. In the last years of the fifteenth century, Skelton was tutor to the future King Henry VIII. In 1502, however, when Henry became Heir Apparent, Skelton was dismissed. The rest of Skelton's life consisted of one attempt after another to secure royal service once again through writing.

Skelton's Magnyfycence is his only surviving dramatic work and it shows, in exquisite detail, the intricacies of life at court. The play concerns a prince named "Magnyfycence" who is tricked (by characters representing various vices) into straying from the straight and narrow path of behaviour appropriate for royalty. These vices chip away at the prince's character, one by one, until he is ruined. Only through the involvement of the virtue characters -- "Good Hope", "Perserveraunce" and "Redresse"-- can "Magnyfycence" return to the responsible and wise world of royalty.

Magnyfycence has long been thought to have been written around 1515-16 -- based upon the notion that the play initiated Skelton's satirical attack on Henry VIII's chief minister, Cardinal Wolsey. Greg Walker argues that the assumption of dating Magnyfycence at 1515-16 is based upon scant evidence and requires huge assumptions regarding exactly what situation the play satirizes. Walker points out that the only thing we can be sure of in the dating of Magnyfycence is that it was written no sooner than January 1515 and no later than October 1523.

Walker suggests that it is not Cardinal Wolsey, essentially, who is satirized in Magnyfycence, but a situation known as the "Expulsion of the Minions." In 1518, Henry VIII invented a new position at Court (borrowed from the French Court) called "Gentleman of the Privy Chamber." Upon inventing the position, the King appointed some of his closest friends as GPC's. Within a year, however, more than half of these minions were expelled in disgrace and essentially banished. Magnyfycence, according to Walker, takes this "Expulsion of the Minions" as its guiding situation and not the various Anglo-French events suggested by previous scholars looking for a strong Wolsey link.

The philosophical underpinnings of Magnyfycence are, according to Walker, a combination of Aristotle's notion of "the mean" and Aquinas' more theologically-based principles. The spiritual sub-themes of the play come to a predictably Christian conclusion, but they do not constitute the raison d'etre of the work. The central issue, says Walker, is the education of a prince regarding the proper conduct of a royal government -- a very Aristotelian issue. This question which arises regarding Aristotle is not merely academic, because Tudor households were, indeed, based upon Aristotle's principles; and Magnyfycence is firmly based in the ways of the royal household. A king (or prince) who could govern his own household could, logically, govern a nation. Magnyfycence dramatically demonstrates what happens when corruption and rivalry replace order and reason; the sovereign becomes a prisoner to his own servants.

Magnyfycence was written for an audience in or around London, but was probably never performed in Court. All of the roles can be played by four men and one boy which suggests, perhaps, that a touring company was in Skelton's mind as he wrote it. It seems as though Skelton wanted to kill two birds with one stone in writing Magnyfycence; it may have been commissioned by a livery company for entertainment and instruction but Skelton likely assumed that word of the play would reach the court. There is no indication that Magnyfycence restored Skelton to royal favour. Similarly, there is little indication that the play persuaded King Henry VIII to "lead a new life" if, as Walker argues, the drama was an example of "political advice literature."

The actual use of dramatic space in Magnyfycence is quite dynamic for its time. The amount of space occupied by a given player (as well as levels exuded) indicated the amount of power this character had in a given situation. Most interestingly, as "Magnyfycence" crumbles into corruption, those lower than him take up more of "his" space; quite literally, then, he has lost his "majeste." This space-use on Skelton's part backs up the larger, thematic concerns of the play: a good household values deference to authority, the virtuous use of "largesse" (a notion which gets played upon specifically), and the rule of reason and order over vice. When the prince slips in his dealings with the household, the very system of defence upon which he has rested -- the patronage system -- leads to his downfall. The chink in his armour is a chink in the patronage system.

Skelton's use of the patronage system as the avenue of corruption highlights the importance of strict maintenance of the system's integrity -- without, of course, relying upon the system at the expense of one's own better judgment. Within the ideal Tudor patronage system operating in the ideal manner, every visitor or courtier had a certain level of "security clearance" similar to the system in place at The Pentagon in modern times. Only the most trusted individuals should be allowed close to the monarch. When unsavoury types gain access to the monarch, the household inevitably collapses.

Many critics have posed the very literal question as to why exactly the vice-characters sought admission to court life. The answer is simple according to Walker: in Tudor times, a place in court was the be-all-end-all, and the key to wealth and influence (and the only key for many). The "vices" represent the naked self-interest aspect of royal service, while the "virtues" represent those characteristics which would render an individual desirable as royalty or as a royal servant. The various interactions between the vices and the virtues (i.e. Measure), and their eventual role-swapping, provides a parody of the patronage system while at the same time underlining the inherent dangers of relying on a system. Skelton's handling of the subtleties of power-play which were no doubt very much a part of court life is brilliant: When "Measure" is expelled and vice triumphs, the main tool (measure) of household integrity-maintenance is gone; vice has beaten virtue on its own turf.

Although Magnyfycence is not the first secular English Morality play (this honour goes to Medwall's Fulgens and Lucres) as many once thought, it is unique. Magnyfycence makes great use of Skelton's intimate knowledge of court life and the subtleties that were at work therein. The use of dramatic space as a political signifier, the adaptation of a situation like "The Expulsion of the Minions" to dramatic terms, and even the very consideration of political issues via a private/household situation, all make Magnyfycence and Skelton himself very important indeed.

2. [That Completed by Group 3.]

Greg Walker refutes claims that John Skelton's play Magnyfycence satirizes Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, whose influence on Henry VIII in 1516 resulted in the ill-advised financing of foreign armies to fight France. Since Henry might have seen such satire to be censuring him as well, and since Skelton during these years sought the King's patronage, a sharply critical play would have counteracted Skelton's intentions. Other factors, like the questionable dating of the play, and the inaccurate description of the clerical Wolsey as a foppish courtier, also suggest another interpretation.

Although Walker admits that Magnyfycence was highly political, he proposes that instead of satirizing Wolsey, it illustrates the 1519 expulsion of the minions. These courtiers (among others Frances Bryan) had displayed extravagant behaviour, unseemly familiarity with the King, and condescending manner after returning from a diplomatic mission in France. To counteract criticisms of royal weakness, the court portrayed "their removal as part of a significant change in both Henry's attitude and in the atmosphere of the court" (69). The King's advisors thereby extolled his strength rather than criticizing his lifestyle, and although the court never commissioned Skelton to write Magnyfycence, the play suited this public explanation.

Walker points to striking similarities between the play and the courtier's expulsion, and claims that Skelton's careful politics also support this interpretation. Like Skelton's vices, the minions were over-familiar with and had potential ruinous influence on the King; they were enthusiastic jousters, and they saturated their speech with French expressions. Moreover, Skelton carefully minimized any possible trace of Royal critique. Initially, thus, Magnyfycence is a wise ruler who adheres to the patronage system, and he is absent during a long interval when the vices reveal their corruption. Furthermore, though Magnyfycence, too, temporarily becomes corrupted, the final image is one of restored reason. Walker suggests that to reflect both "the moral education of a man, and the political education of a prince," Skelton used Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas as philosophical sources (77). Aristotle taught that by adopting the mean, one avoided both extravagance and stinginess; thus, when Magnyfycence rejects Measure, the court turns frivolous. The courtly system thus balanced between privilege and deference and, if unbalanced, the system became corrupt. "By setting the removal of the minions in the context of an Aristotelian debate on true Kingship, Skelton presented the purge as clear evidence of Henry's status as a magnificent sovereign," Walker explains. "In doing so he offered a clear and effective apologia for the King's actions" (84). Although Walker believes Skelton wrote the play to court favour, Magnyfycence operated on a modest budget, and was probably performed in a livery company's hall in London. Such audience, however, would have appreciated the political innuendoes, and was close enough to the King to bring Skelton's efforts to his attention.

Magnyfycence also depicts the value of patronage, and the result of its misuse. When Measure works as an agent and a leader order reigns in the court, but chaos intrudes when the courtiers abandon the patronage system and each character claim preeminence. Moreover, Abusyon's "cynical and self-interested" version of patronage is far removed from Measure's genuine regard for the nation's welfare (98). Consequently, by dramatizing the expulsion of the minions, Skelton provided the audience an "exposition in debate form of principles of good government and a visual demonstration of those principles in action" (93).

3. Bevington, David. "Skelton and the Old Aristocracy." 54-63 in Tudor Drama and Politics: A Critical Approach to Topical Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968. [Completed by Group 4.]

In "Skelton And The Old Aristocracy," Bevington begins by addressing the conflict that arose between the new and the old ruling classes during the early years of Henry VIII's reign. After briefly outlining the implications of this conflict, Bevington suggests that Skelton leaned towards "the old nobility" (55), and continues with some examples to support this claim. Bevington further indicates that Skelton was not afraid to speak out against Henry VIII or "Tudor propaganda" (55), and he emphasizes this by mentioning the collection of Skelton's poems that satirize Wolsey.

However, Bevington contends that Magnificence "does not belong to the group of vindictive personal satires directed against Wolsey" (55), but rather fits the genre of "Speculum Principis" (56). After offering various reasons to support his contention, he suggests that the play examines a "political crisis" around 1516, and that the characters of Magnificence are representative of "types" rather than specific members of the court. Moreover, Bevington states that "Skelton's great contribution to political drama was not observation from the life but a closer application of old techniques to new realities than had heretofore been attempted" (56). He then proceeds to examine how the latter distinction can be observed in the play itself, with specific reference to the play's "handling of viewpoint and of calculated response from a Tudor audience" (56).

After citing some examples from Magnificence, Bevington indicates how the play's circumstances compare with important issues of the time, such as the matter of Henry's excessive spending habits. Bevington continues with some observations, noting the ways in which Skelton anticipated his audience, thus crafting his characters with specific responses in mind. Bevington then re-emphasizes the conventional nature of Skelton's characters, stating that "personal resemblances.....are extremely unlikely" (58), and goes on to examine various political events that occurred in Henry's court around 1516: events that he suggests are reflected in the play.

Bevington speaks briefly about the play's auspices, indicating that it was probably sponsored by a conservative and either toured or performed in homes; it was not performed at Henry's court. He then continues by examining how Skelton's "attack on the new men in court" is achieved through "satirical types," and contrasted by characters with more "virtuous and traditional" qualities (60). After identifying some of the play's "satirical types," Bevington proposes that these characters create a composite portrait of the new man, and he supports this idea with more examples.

In the last few pages, Bevington examines what he considers to be the most significant theme of Magnificence: the "implied criticism of Henry VIII" (60). He suggests that such a critique is found in the play's similarity to political events of 1516, and continues with an analysis of Magnificence's character in order to demonstrate this idea. He concludes by indicating that the allegorized ending of the play is not historical but idealized, and suggests a reason why Magnificence's "decline on Fortune's wheel" is a critical facet of the play's "speculum intent" (63). To Bevington, the play's conclusion represents Skelton's genuine belief in giving Henry a chance to admit his errors, and accept conservative advice.

• Week 10 (November 25):
1. Fox, Alistair. "The Unquiet Mind of Sir Thomas Wyatt." 257-85 in Politics and Literature in the Reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. [Completed by Group 1.]

Alistair Fox begins by describing Henry VIII as the number one courtly lover in the game courtly romance . However, Henry's desire to produce an heir to the thrown led him into marriage, first with Katharine of Aragon and then later to Anne Boleyn. Wyatt was a courtier at this time and was in love with Anne. Like all the other courtiers Wyatt was as a pawn in a game which Henry, the "paranoid king," controlled (259). Wyatt was married in 1520 at the age of 17 to Elizabeth Brooke, a women who Fox claims Wyatt never loved. Fox also suggests that this marriage was the reason for Wyatt's "future tribulations and political troubles" (259). Fox argues that Wyatt's writings and his emotional stability evolve out of his love relationships. Fox divides Wyatt's life, and writings into four categories. The first one revolves around his courtly pursuit of Anne. The second focuses on his lose of Anne to Henry. The third surrounds the death of Anne and his knew relationship with Elizabeth Darrell. And the fourth and final stage in Wyatt's life and writings occurred when he was forced to leave Elizabeth Darrell and return to his wife Elizabeth Brooke.

When Anne Boleyn returned to England Wyatt's intensity in the flirtatious game of courtly love became one of "serious passion" (260). Wyatt, however was out of his league; Henry wanted Anne too. Fox is convinced that Wyatt's writings entailed enough explicit content to justify the fact that he and Anne had a courtly-love-relationship (260). Anne married Henry, and Wyatt turned to writing poetry in order to cope with the emotional turmoil and betrayal he felt. It was a common thing for a lover to write in lament over the loss of a pursued love, but mostly this was done in the flirtatious spirit of the game. Fox, however, suggests that Wyatt's lamenting was serious, and that Wyatt was distraught and bitter, without Anne's love, and therefore without identity. Fox also suggests that Anne's "defection" to Henry caused Wyatt's belief in "conventional values" to be crushed. Wyatt introduces Petrarch's love sonnets to convey his feelings (262). In translating Petrarch's work he changes words and meanings subtly to fulfil his political agenda of criticising the king's misuse of his position. Wyatt showed the "expression of his perturbation" by condemning Anne's hypocritical behaviour (263) and blaming her for his "misery" (267).

In 1536 Anne Boleyn and Wyatt were both charged with treason for their alleged adultery, which Fox's suggests didn't happen (267). Wyatt was released but not before watching Anne beheaded. Wyatt's own words best describe his emotional anguish when he says: "These boldye dayes haue brokyn my hart; / My lust, my youth dyd then departe" (267). Fox claims that Anne's death gave Wyatt a new identity, one of "stoic fortitude and inflexible virtue", an attitude that would pay the price even if it meant exile (268).Wyatt translated the writings of the Italian neo-stoic Luigi Alamanni. Instead of courtly lyrics he now wrote moral satire which warned against "aspiring to high at court" and becoming exposed to "tyrants" like Henry (268). He changed Alamanni's work's in order to "explicitly" show Henry as a murderous dictator (271). Fox states that Wyatt could not continue to remain stoic on his own and therefore sought a new love in Elizabeth Darrell (273). Wyatt returned to the court and it's lyrics telling of how Elizabeth Darrell became his substitute for Anne Bolyen. But soon Wyatt became ambassador to the king and was sent to Spain. Unable to maintain his affair with Elizabeth Darrell, he once again turns to Petrarch's love poetry but this time for "amorous complaint" rather than "political protest" (274) ; Wyatt's poems now reflected a desire to be back in the arms of Elizabeth, who according to Fox, was Wyatt's new found stability. In 1541 Wyatt was arrested and charged with treason. Wyatt tuned again to Petrarch's sonnet to express the "eroding of his soul" (278). It appeared as if Wyatt had lost " the last vestiges of his self respect" by writing exactly what the King wanted to here in order to be pardoned (280). Wyatt was pardoned under the condition that he give up his affair with Elizabeth Darrell and returned to his wife. Wyatt then took on a "Lutheran influence" rewriting some of David's biblical Psalms in order to attain "peace of mind" (283). In his re-write of Psalm 51, Wyatt put himself in the place of David, and Elizabeth Darrell in the place of Bathsheba, repenting of his adulteress affair. Fox maintains that Wyatt's was recovering the "spiritual identity" he had lost when he submitted to the king, by now offering a "complete submission to God" (285). Fox ends by suggesting that at Wyatt's death in 1542 Wyatt was a man of broken heart and contrite spirit, who had exemplified through his life and his writings the "heartaches" attached to serving in the court of King Henry VIII.

2. Spearing, A.C. "Wyatt as Satirist." 306-10 in Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. [Completed by Group 2.]

In "Wyatt as Satirist" Spearing takes a close look at Wyatt's poem "A Spending Hand," which he refers to as "Satire III"; it is the last of three satires Wyatt wrote. The piece is addressed to Sir Francis Brian, who, like Wyatt, was a courtier, diplomat and poet. At the time of the poem's composition in the mid-1530s, Wyatt and Brian were still on good terms, although later their relationship fell into less amiable terms, leading many to falsely believe that "A Spending Hand" treats Brian in a derogatory manner.

In "A Spending Hand," Brian is portrayed as a man of integrity, who honours his allegiance to the king and to England. He is appropriately shocked at the advice of the speaker, Wyatt, who explains, in what must be identified as extended irony, how he can make material gains as a courtier.

Spearing interrupts his close reading of the piece to discuss briefly the evolution of satire, which gained momentum in the form of anti-court satire in the Renaissance with the spread of absolute monarchs, such as Henry VIII, who created the powerful and fashionable courts. Returning to the poem, he notes the effectiveness of the satire as being due not only to the bold irony but also to the startling, somewhat violent images that describe the public behaviours in question. Also, Wyatt's use of rhythm and pauses increase the strength of "A Spending Hand."

Spearing then addresses the values behind Wyatt's satire, which derive partly from the same traditional, rigid wisdom of proverbs. Two such proverbs, he points out, begin and end the poem with hard-nosed truth and facts of human existence; these provide a solid framework for the piece. However, the poem is also concerned with the subject of moral ideals and their clash in situations of opposing systems. For example, for Wyatt the difference between good and evil was not a religious division of the supernatural and the natural, but a division between ways of living. This Renaissance feeling, as opposed to the Medieval religiosity of the past, portrays the anti-monastic feeling of Wyatt and many of his contemporaries and is reflected in "A Spending Hand" when Brian compares the life of ease that Wyatt promotes to the lives of monks.

Following this poke at the monastic life, Brian declares that he will still serve their king, and does not agree when Wyatt tells him how to make that servitude profitable, wanting only to gain and maintain an honourable reputation. Such a reputation comes about only through "trouth," speaking it, that is, as well as acting with general honour and moral principles. Spearing sums up the piece by adding that to truly understand Wyatt's lyrics we must read them alongside his satires; this reading will also give us the understanding of how for Wyatt private and public life are greatly interconnected.

3. Greenblatt, Stephen. "Power, Sexuality, and Inwardness in Wyatt's Poetry." 115-156 in Stephen Greenblatt. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. U of Chicago P, 1980. [Completed by Group 3.]

Greenblatt begins this article by stating that Wyatt's penitential psalms and his satires move decisively away from the religious inwardness of More and Tyndale, and reflect the sexual and political struggles occurring in the court of Henry VIII. Moreover, Wyatt's poetry shows an intense individuality and separation of personal needs opposing the impersonal, diplomatic forms which the court dictated. Greenblatt argues however, that Wyatt's individuality was not removed from social pressure or religious and political power but actually shaped by them. Although his poetry voices complaints about the abuses of court life, it does so from within the safe confines of that which it seeks to vilify. The poems seem to express a single unified process which may be described in religious terms as penitence or in psychological terms as loving submission to domination (126). In attempting to put forth this process, Wyatt introduced the terza rima into English literature. Like the psalms, Wyatt's satires express frustration at invoked power and have, at times an almost tedious moralizing discourse. It is through this discourse, however, that Wyatt appears to discover his true voice and inward self-presentation. This is most evident in "A Spending Hand" which exposes the self-deception of Sir Francis Brian.

Greenblatt senses that the incongruity of describing the wayward Francis Brian as a principled citizen in "A Spending Hand" would have caused a cognitive dissonance amongst Wyatt's contemporaries. Wyatt's poetry, then, vented indirectly his frustration over his career choice, and his poetic technique developed for reasons beyond aesthetic concerns. Courtly poetry was more than a trivial social game, since the poet often carried an enormous stake in a "game" that was often fatal (137). Most lyrics, though, described the sexual struggle, and despite the illusion of courtship often expressed disillusionment and malice toward women (139). Greenblatt sees a connection between diplomacy and sexual conquest, stating that in both "the psalms and the satires, it is above all power that shapes [Wyatt's] poetical discourse" (142). Clearly, as Henry's diplomat, Wyatt developed a "fine sensitivity...to plausible lies and passionate insincerity which correspond to his lyrical expressions of disillusionment in love" (143).

Just as an ambassador's first duty is to the government he serves, so a courtier's first duty is to his court. Ultimately, Wyatt's poetry is embedded in the sexual innuendos and politics of the court and shaped by its power (146). Even in his translation of Petrarch's "Una Candida Cerva" which he refashioned into a renunciation, he relied heavily on translation and implication. To expose true thoughts would have been courtly suicide.

Wyatt's poetry can be seen as a discursive of profane realism and is closely linked to his heightened sense of individuality. The reader is more aware of technique than actual language. Wyatt expresses faith in his sense of self and constantly struggles to maintain this sense and achieve independent self-presentation over diplomatic self-presentation.

Week 11 (December 2):

1. Southall, Raymond. "The Devonshire Manuscript Collection of Early Tudor Poetry, 1532-41." Review of English Studies [n.s.] 15 (1964): 142-50. [Completed by Group 1.]

Raymond Southall's article addresses the speculative and circuitous ownership of the Devonshire Manuscript and the ambiguous nature of authorship of the collected works. By focussing on the context surrounding the manuscript, the character of the poems becomes more accessible.

The Devonshire Manuscript consists of 124 pages, including fragments. The original binding has been dated between 1525-1559 and is stamped with the gold initials "M.F." and "S.E." It contains approximately 184 poems attributed to various authors. Southall exposes the difficultly of assessing authorship as some of the poems are copies of courtly lyrics, for example "Hey Robyn, Jolly Robyn." Others poems contain medieval fragments of works originally composed by Chaucer, Hoccleve and Roos. The medieval works were written in the manuscript by Mary Shelton.

Although as many as twenty three collectors may have contributed to the manuscript, the three principle collectors were Mary Shelton, Mary Fitzroy and Margaret Douglas. According to one scholar, Miss Foxwell, the Devonshire MS originally belonged to Thomas Wyatt who gave it to Thomas Howard in the mid 1520s. Thomas Howard gave the Manuscript to son, Henry, who in turn shared it with his brother-in-law Henry Fitzroy and together they gave it to Mary Howard as a wedding gift.

However, Southall counters that there is no evidence that the manuscript acquired by either Henry Fitzroy or Henry Howard shortly before 1532 and was then given to Mary Howard as a wedding gift. At the time Mary Howard was in the household of Ann Boleyn, together with Mary Shelton and Margaret Douglas. The manuscript drifted amongst the principle collectors, who entered poetic verses and circulated the text around the court, encouraging others to participate in the writing. The poems were essentially anonymous, and Southall finds no reason why so many of the works are attributed to Thomas Wyatt.

Foxwell's and Southall's theories also differ in how the manuscript eventually found its way to Chatsworth House where it became part of the Devonshire collection. Foxwell believes the manuscript passed through the hands of Mary Queen of Scotts to Chatsworth House. Southall proposes the manuscript came to Chatsworth directly from the hand of Mary Douglas, who married Matthew Stuart, fourth Earl of Lennox.

The theme of courtly love was central to the collected poems, displaying the "liveliness of amour courtois in Anne Boleyn's circle" (146). For example, Margaret Douglas was confined twice for impolitic love, which is defined as "real affection opposing the political order of degrees and estates" (149). The fate of Margaret Douglas emphasizes the importance of the "three ideal regulations of courtly love" which were love, loyalty and secrecy, and are the focus of the poems. The first poem in the manuscript warns the lover of the spies and traps surrounding him. The second poem, "O cruell causer of vndeserrvede chaynge," focuses on the importance of steadfastness and true intent. The context surrounding the poetry was a court where the facade of love could become a weapon, therefor it was important to confirm the sincerity of the affections expressed. Further, secrecy was crucial, especially if one loved the wrong person. Thus the themes of love, secrecy and loyalty were not just poetic conventions, but also expressed the "real character of the court" and required the anonymity of the writers (150).

2. Southall, Raymond. "Chapter 2." 15-25 in The Courtly Maker: An Essay on the Poetry of Wyatt and His Contemporaries. Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. [Completed by Group 2.]

The Devonshire Manuscript is an important anthology of court poetry, not because it is a source of Wyatt's poetry (which, according to Southall, it is not), but because it allows us to see what we know to be Wyatt's work within the wider context of the poetry of his contemporaries. In his discussion of the manuscript, Southall examines the circulation and contributors of the text, as well as its diction and subject matter. After attacking A.K. Foxwell's interpretation of the movement and ownership of the text, he describes its circulation as he has reconstructed it, beginning with its purchase, perhaps by Henry Fitzroy, in the autumn of 1533.

The first poem is ascribed to Thomas Wyatt, but is not written in his hand, nor are the following five poems, which were written in a hand which was not that of the first. At this point of the manuscript's existence, Fitzroy married Mary Howard; it was thought, as she was only fourteen at the time, that Mary was too young to live with her husband, and she was sent to live for a period of time with Anne Boleyn. This occasion brought three new contributors to the manuscript: Mary Shelton, Margaret Douglas and Anne Boleyn herself. Though these women were key in the creation of the manuscript, it was circulated outside of their circle as well, resulting in a number of contributors, some of whom remain unidentified.

Southall continues his article with a description of the tragedies that befell the group of contributing poets: Anne Boleyn's execution, Margaret Douglas and Thomas Howard arrest for their secret attachment, the death of Henry Fitzroy, and the death of Thomas Howard two days after Margaret's release from prison. Margaret later became the first lady to the new Queen, but was again jailed soon after for another inexcusable affair. This time Margaret had possession of the manuscript and added a large number of poems. Margaret was again released and eventually gained permanent possession of the manuscript, which she took with her when she married. She shared it with her sons, one who added a poem, and one who later inherited the text, which ended up in the Devonshire library.

It is here that Southall examines the diction and subject matter of the poems of the Devonshire Manuscript. He points out their lack of brilliant and learned diction, predominant use of the vernacular and the evidence supporting the view that many of them were written as songs. He states that it is easy to see why many of these poems address issues of love, loyalty and secrecy, which he calls "the three ideal regulations of courtly love" (23), in light of the difficult circumstances the poets found themselves in. Many of the poems seem to be subtly addressed to members of the circle of poets, warning them of their situations, but the common theme arises more generally from the common hazards and indiscretions of love in Henry VIII's court. Knowing the circumstances of these poets allows us to look at courtly love poetry in a more serious manner; the poetry becomes a means to examine, by looking deeper than conventions, the pressures of court life, rather than simply the idealistic fantasy of courtly love.

3. Remley, Paul G. "Mary Shelton and Her Tudor Literary Milieu." 40-77 in Peter C. Herman, ed. Rethinking the Henrician Era: Essays on Early Tudor Texts and Contexts. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1994. [Completed by Group 3.]

In his study of Mary Shelton's literary activities and her life, Paul Remley suggests scholars have paid little attention to her "special place in Tudor literary history." Her writings in the Devonshire Manuscript are one of the "earliest surviving [literary] efforts of a woman" living during this period (41). The involvement of women in secular text during this time was unusual, and could even be "potentially dangerous" (44). Remley's article considers a number of elements surrounding Shelton's contributions to the manuscript. These include analysis of her handwriting and signature, her historical identity, her supposed "love exchange" poetry and the Chaucerian extracts she apparently copied.

Remley begins by referring to new studies of handwriting in the manuscript. These indicate Shelton's as the only inscription so far that can be safely identified (41); the manuscript had previously been "exploited . . . in the service of the canon of Wyatt's poems" (41). Remley surmises from the new studies that Shelton probably had a much more determined place in the volume than she has been given: Her entries had been thought of as "haphazard scrawls," but may have been "deliberate attempts to recast" the poetry of others as a "new and proprietary sort of literary text" (42). Remley writes it is also probable she used the volume as a "vehicle" for her own "personal circumstances and . . . [for] . . . those of her collaborators" (42).

Remley then gives Mary Shelton's true identity as daughter of John and Anne Shelton. They were both closely associated with royalty, and were able to give her access to the best schooling, and to "courtly circles." These links may have also given her access to "Tudor literary circles," and to Surrey in particular (45). On the death of Surrey's "friend and attendant" Thomas Clerc, the poet wrote a eulogistic sonnet in which he indicated an affair between Clerc and one of the Shelton sisters (44). This sister has since been positively identified as Mary; Remley writes that contemporaries continued to link Shelton with Surrey after this (46).

Remley then investigates Shelton's entries in the manuscript. He writes her contributions can only be interpreted correctly by looking at the "content of the texts" on its leaves, in addition to simply looking at "handwriting analysis" (49). Her signature may have been an effort to display ownership of her "involvement in the production of the manuscript" (49). Her two signatures in the main body of the manuscript might have been attempts to brush off the "lyrical advances" of a "prospective lover" (Wyatt, according to "several editors"), or they may have been meant to show "the absurd spectacle of a man determined to get his way" even at the expense of humiliating himself (50). Shelton therefore could have been an "active annotator" in the margins of the manuscript (50).

Remley also implicates Shelton as the copier in the manuscript's literary exchange between Margaret Douglas and Thomas Howard (who were imprisoned for their affair). She had the means to facilitate the physical exchange of the verse between the two lovers as her father commanded "one segment of the palace guard," and her brother was "groom porter at the Tower of London" (54). Shelton may have copied this particular verse into the volume to assert her own disagreement with their incarceration. The exchange was inseparable from political and historical events, and therefore Remley calls it "protest literature" (51).

Remley also shows it is possible Shelton copied the Chaucerian extracts found in the manuscript. These came from "Thynne's edition of Chaucer" and their copying shows the impact of printed texts . . . [on] . . . poetry . . . in the Tudor period (55). The extracts had previously been thought of as "some sort of courtly amusement." Remley contends that these were rather Shelton's "indignation at the treatment of women of her time by hypocritical lovers" (54). In some instances she may have even neutralized misogynist text by altering their meaning; she changed the Chaucerian line "The cursydness yet and disceyte of women" to read "The faythfulnes yet and prayse of women" (56): Remley suggests Shelton adopted Chaucerian lyrics to serve a feminist end.

Remley also identifies other collaborators to the manuscript. These are Wyatt, Surrey, "E.K." (Edmund Knyvet of Buckingham Castle), and Anthony Lee (a brother-in-law of Thomas Wyatt's). "Shelton's literary circle" had at one end of the continuum of "accomplished poets," such as Wyatt and Surrey, and at the other "amateurs" (61). Remley argues past investigations of "Henrician humanism" had been thought to reflect the "social milieu of Tudor literary miscellany," but it may instead have been more indicative of the "daily events" surrounding it (61). The manuscript witnessed "the cultivation of contemporary poetry" during the Tudor era, but also the "incivilities of the Henrician court" (62).

4. Heale, Elizabeth. "Women and the Courtly Love Lyric: The Devonshire MS (BL Additional 17492)." Modern Language Review 90 (1995): 296-313. [Completed by Group 4.]

In her article "Women and the Courtly Love Lyric: The Devonshire MS," Elizabeth Heale outlines women's associations with the courtly love lyric, both as subjects and as participants. Initially, Heale describes how women were most often given a voice by men in the lyrics and as a result, were "the silent objects of love rather than its active, articulate pursuers" (296). However, Heale also introduces the idea that through the practice of manuscript circulation, women were able to "make themselves heard" by commenting on and copying out poems (296). Heale continues by identifying the difficulties women of the court faced in their attempts to tread between the two contradicting traditions of the "amorous repartee" (297) of courtly love and the "silence and self-effacement" of chastity (298). Further, Heale indicates that those who tried to live the courtly love tradition also ran into problems, as the upper-class women were often no more than bait in the dynastic maneuvers of royalty.

Heale then focuses on the Devonshire Manuscript and the three women of the Tudor court who are known to have contributed to it: Lady Margaret Douglas, Mary Shelton, and Mary Howard. According to Heale, the Devonshire Manuscript contains poems in which these women "can be seen responding in a variety of lively ways . . . to the rhetoric of courtly love" as well as poems which are spoken in a woman's voice or offer a woman's point of view (301). Heale continues by providing several examples of poems that speak from a woman's perspective, whether they were written by a woman or not. One such example is "Farewell all my wellfare" which seems to be a lamentation of the "faithless lover" type, but with the woman bemoaning her faithless man rather than the typical man bemoaning his faithless woman (302). In another example Heale describes the misogynist tradition in courtly love poems and suggests that they too "formed part of a mocking exchange in which the women felt free to reply in kind" (303). One common example of this type of reply is found in the genre of "women's replies," which, whether actually written by a female, "gave women an imaginary voice and a language with which to enter a witty, flyting exchange on the topic of love" (304).

Heale also informs us how Douglas and Shelton would deliberately search out, write or adapt poems "to give themselves a voice" (312). She does again caution us that poems which seem to offer a woman's perspective were not necessarily written by women, although she identifies the many contributions made by these ladies as "recipients, as selectors, as commentators, [and] as composers of courtly verses" (313). According to Heale, these women appear to be "appropriating" and employing the language of the love lyrics and "responding to [them] with wit and . . . scepticism," especially enjoying those poems which "turned a similar rhetoric back against men" (313). Heale concludes by summarizing her findings, and by indicating that though the courtly love tradition gave women a freedom to express themselves outside of their rigidly controlled lives, it was still only a "virtual freedom" that existed more in the imagination and on paper than in the real world.

---