LINEBURG


<< . .

 23
( 27)



. . >>

similar sentiments, see John Oldham, Poems, ed. Harold F. Brooks and Raman
Selden (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), Satire 3, lines 327“32 (p. 35).
93. See de¬nitions in OED.
94. At South Kyme, Lincolnshire, in 1601, an anticlerical dramatic presentation
was held including an episode where a mock minister read from the Book
of Mab, Queen of the Fairies: see Adam Fox, ˜Religious Satire in English
Towns, 1570“1640™, chapter 13 in Patrick Collinson (ed.), The Reformation in
English Towns (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 226“7. Fairies often featured
in subversive quasi-dramatic activity; for transvestite and other ˜fairy™ riots,
see Natalie Zemon Davis, ˜Women On Top: Sexual Inversion and Political
Disorder in Early Modern Europe™, chapter 5 in Barbara Babcock (ed.), The
Reversible World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978).
95. Quoted from The Poems of Richard Corbett, ed. J. A. W. Bennett and H. R.
Trevor-Roper (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 49“52. Purkiss, Troublesome
Things, pp. 183“5, discusses Herrick™s and Corbett™s use of Catholic fairies;
Regina Buccola™s Fairies, Fractious Women . . ., which appeared just as this
book was about to go to press, undertakes a full-length exploration of the link
between Catholics and fairies at this date. Thomas Percy notes the similarity
Notes to pages 78“81 207
between Corbett™s poem and Chaucer™s ˜Wife of Bath™s Tale™: see Reliques
of Ancient English Poetry, 3 vols. (1886 edn, repr. New York: Dover, 1966),
vol. 3, pp. 207“8. The most extensive discussion of the poem to date is
M. E. Bradford, ˜The Prescience of Richard Corbet: Observations on “The
Fairies™ Farewell”™, Sewanee Review, 81:2 (1973), pp. 309“17; see also Philip
J. Finkelpearl, ˜The Fairies™ Farewell: The Masque at Coleorton (1618)™, RES,
46:183 (1995), pp. 333“51, which comments on how both masque and poem
show fairies driven into hiding by Puritans, and points out that Corbett visited
Coleorton (p. 339).
96. Quotations taken from Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 481“2. The passage is discussed by Quentin Skin-
ner in Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), pp. 399“400. Cf. Samuel Harsnet, A Declaration of
Egregious Popish Impostures (1603 edn.), p. 134.
97. Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, 3 vols. (London, 1765), vol. III, p. 201.
98. A True Relation (1601), p. 18, cited by Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of
Merry England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 128.
99. Aubrey, Three Prose Works, ed. Buchanan-Brown, preface to ˜Remaines of
Gentilisme and Judaisme™, p. 132.
100. Miracles Lately Wrought by the Intercession of the Glorious Virgin Marie, at
Mont-aigu (1606), f. C2a.
101. See Thomas Lodge, The Divel Conjured (1596), f. H1b; Colm Lennon,
Richard Stanihurst the Dubliner, 1547“1618 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press,
1981), pp. 77“8. On Campion™s opinion, see above, p. 56.
102. Quoted from the edition of The Hind and the Panther in John Dryden, Poems,
ed. Paul Hammond and David Hopkins (Harlow: Longman, 2000), vol. III,
Part I, lines 212“18; Part 3, line 1053.
103. On old wives™ tales, proverbially comparable with popery as demonstrating
the weaknesses of oral tradition, see Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture in
England, 1500“1700 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), chapter 3.
104. All passages from The Rape of the Lock are quoted from The Twickenham
Edition of the Works of Alexander Pope, general ed. John Butt, 11 vols. (London:
this edn Routledge, 1993), vol. II (ed. Geoffrey Tillotson).
105. 27 August 1714: quoted from George Sherburn (ed.), The Correspondence of
Alexander Pope, 5 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), vol. I, pp. 246“7. See
Twickenham edn, pp. 103“4, concerning the February“March publication
dates of the 1714 edition of The Rape of the Lock.
106. The families concerned in the incident which inspired the poem, the Fer-
mors, Petres and Carylls, formed part of the group of intermarried Catholic
families in whose circle Pope moved. See Twickenham edn, vol. II, pp. 81“
105.
107. Literary Hours or Sketches Critical and Narrative (1798), pp. 88“9.
108. See, most recently, Kristen Poole, Radical Religion from Shakespeare to Milton
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), introduction.
208 Notes to pages 82“6
3 . a ns wer ing back: o r a l it y a nd con t rove rs y
1. Bod MS Rawl. D. 10, ff. 134b“135a: discussed and quoted on p. 340 of Phebe
Jensen, ˜Ballads and Brags: Free Speech and Recusant Culture in Elizabethan
England™, Criticism, 40:3 (1998), pp. 333“54.
2. See chapter 1 above. Thomas Larkham (discussed above, p. 67), with other
preachers who condemned superstition in sermons, may be a partial exception
to this rule.
3. On the use of metre as an aid to memorisation, see Daniel Woolf, ˜Memory
and Historical Culture in Early Modern England™, Journal of the Canadian
Historical Association, n.s. 2 (1991), pp. 283“308 (esp. p. 292), and his The
Social Circulation of the Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 265.
4. See (e.g.) the discussion of William Fulke™s annotations to the Rheims New
Testament in Evelyn B. Tribble, Margins and Marginality (Charlottesville:
Virginia University Press, 1993), chapter 1.
5. Tribble, Margins, introduction (esp. p. 6), emphasises the ¬‚uidity of marginalia
in respect to the text proper.
6. ˜Ballads and Brags™, p. 333. On toleration, see (most recently) Alexandra Wal-
sham, A Charitable Hatred? (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).
On the role of controversial interchange in conversion, see Michael Questier,
Conversion, Politics and Religion in England, 1580“1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), esp. chapter 2.
7. See Introduction, p. 12.
8. Orality and Literacy, pp. 43“4.
9. This point is expanded upon in Walter Ong, The Presence of the Word (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), esp. chapter 5 (˜Polemic and the Word™),
and ˜Oral Residue in Tudor Prose Style™, PMLA, 80 (1965), pp. 145“54.
10. Michael Questier has commented that patristic disputes were within laymen™s
capacities: Conversion, p. 14.
11. English translation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 (German
original published by Wilhelm Fink, Munich, 1981).
12. Watt lists some manuscript ballads from Catholic collections in Appendix C to
Cheap Print. For the relationship between manuscript culture and subversive
discourse, see Harold Love, The Culture and Commerce of Texts (this edn
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), esp. chapter 5.
13. W¨ rzbach, Rise, appendix, gives an anthology of elite commentary on the
u
form.
14. In Cheap Print, p. 3; not assumed in (e.g.) W¨ rzbach, Rise, p. 234.
u
15. See Adam Fox, ˜Popular Verses and their Readership in the Early 17th Century™,
chapter 7 in James Raven, Helen Small and Naomi Tadmor (eds.), The Practice
and Representation of Reading in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996).
16. W. E. Richmond, Ballad Scholarship (New York: Garland, 1989), pp. xx“xxi,
de¬nes the genre as combining stanzaic form, frequently with refrains; light
and heavy stresses within lines; for story-ballads, narrative concentration on
a single episode (often in medias res); employment of dramatic conventions
Notes to pages 87“9 209
and reliance on verbal formulae. Two other characteristics he identi¬es “
anonymity, and an impersonal manner of narration “ are more problematic
with reference to Catholic ballads.
17. See chapter 4, pp. 120“2.
18. E.g. John N. King, English Reformation Literature (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1982); Alistair Fox, Politics and Literature in the Court of Henry
VII and Henry VIII (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), chapter 12.
19. For Catholic ballads from the early years of the English Reformation, see
Introduction, p. 16, and Adam Fox, ˜Religious Satire in English Towns, 1570“
1640™, in Patrick Collinson and John Craig (eds.), The Reformation in English
Towns (London: Macmillan, 1996), chapter 13.
20. ˜The Conservative Voice in the English Reformation™, chapter 6 in Simon
Ditch¬eld (ed.), Christianity and Community in the West (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2001), quotation p. 90. Duffy identi¬es Mary I™s reign as the time when a
coherent public expression of opposition to the Reformation began to be
forged. See also Introduction, p. 16.
21. Lucy Wooding sees the period between the 1530s and 1570s as characterised by
uncertainty: Rethinking Catholicism in Reformation England (Oxford: Claren-
don, 2000).
22. Lambeth Palace Library, MS 159, fols. 261“3. Partially quoted in Guiney,
pp. 24“37 (quotation p. 33).
23. Guiney, ibid.; PRO, State Papers 12/16/49.1 (14 April 1561).
24. Transcription taken from Peter J. Seng (ed.), Tudor Songs and Ballads from MS
Cotton Vespasian A-25 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978),
item 4. This is a collection of manuscripts which came into the Cotton Library
(and thence into the British Library) as an integral book in the early seventeenth
century. Seng comments on the Catholic origins of much of its material, and
identi¬es the poem as being copied in the same hand as another written
˜perhaps as early as the end of the reign of Henry VIII™ (pp. xiv“xv).
25. F. G. Emmison, Elizabethan Life (Chelmsford: Essex County Council, 1970),
pp. 59“61, suggesting a date of composition in the 1570s. See the comments
in Fox, ˜Religious Satire™, pp. 228“9, and Woolf, Social Circulation, p. 340.
26. On Catholicism in the ¬rst years of Elizabeth™s reign, see Wooding, Rethinking
Catholicism, chapter 6.
27. See Conclusion, p. 152.
28. Duffy, ˜Conservative Voice™, p. 103.
29. On early records of the tune, see Claude M. Simpson, The British Broadside
Ballad and its Music (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1966), pp. 741“3. On Sir Walter
Ralegh™s poem of the same name and metre, ˜As you came from the holy land /
Of Walsinghame™, Helen Hackett comments that ˜many scholars have reason-
ably assumed that [it] makes use of an established ballad dating from the years
when the shrine was still in operation™ and that the anonymous Catholic poem
discussed above ˜certainly™ predates Ralegh™s, which makes use of Catholic ter-
minology to express allegiance to Elizabeth: Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen
(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), chapter 5, section vii (quotations pp. 156,
210 Notes to pages 89“93
159). See also Sir Walter Ralegh, Poems, ed. Agnes M. C. Latham (London:
Routledge, 1951), pp. 22“3, 120; Margaret Aston, England™s Iconoclasts, vol. I
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 234.
30. The Fitzwilliam Virginal Book contains two sets of variations on the ˜Wals-
ingham™ tune “ one by Byrd, the other a series of variations by John Bull “ as
well as a number of other pieces by Byrd, and material betraying the compiler™s
close connections with English Catholic musicians on the Continent, such as
Bull and Peter Phillips. See J. A. Fuller Maitland and W. Barclay Squire, rev.
Blanche Winogron, The Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, 2 vols. (New York: Dover,
1979“80), vol. I, pp. 1“18 (Bull) and 267“73 (Byrd); and W. Gillies Whittaker,
˜Byrd™s and Bull™s “Walsingham” Variations™, Music Review, 3 (1942), pp. 270“
9. Its traditional attribution to Francis Tregian has been effectively queried by
Ruby Reid Thompson, ˜The “Tregian” Manuscripts: A Study of Their Com-
pilation™, British Library Journal, 18:2 (1992), pp. 202“4; however, it does seem
to have been compiled by a Catholic.
31. Bod Rawl. MS poet.219, f. 16a“b [compiled c.1600]; quoted from David Nor-
brook and H. R. Woudhuysen (eds.), The Penguin Book of Renaissance Verse,
1509“1659 (London: Allen Lane, 1992), no. 250.
32. I am grateful to James Austen for his insightful comments on this passage.
33. The allusions are to Isaiah, chapter 13. Hackett observes that, though the
manuscript miscellany in which the poem survives dates from c.1600, ˜it must
surely have been composed not long after the destruction of the shrine™ (Virgin
Mother, p. 159). See above, notes 29 and 31.
34. National Art Library, Victoria and Albert Museum, Dyce 25.F.40 (reproduced
by kind permission of the Library trustees). I am grateful to Diane Spaul of
the NAL for checking doubtful readings.
35. I.e. ˜for laymen to suppress their priest™.
36. I.e. ˜dragon™.
37. Ezekiel 38“9; Revelation 20:2, 7“8; cf. Amos 7:1.
38. Cf. the ballad at fols. 19b“21b of the same MS, which duplicates several of the
references from this ballad and is probably by the same author. For the place
of Jack Straw in popular cultural reference, see Dagmar Freist, Governed by
Opinion (New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997), pp. 202“3.
39. Beinecke Library, Yale: MS Osborn a.18 (f. 12a). For the use of Piers Plowman
as a spokesman for Wyclif¬te and puritan polemic, see David Norbrook, Poetry
and Politics in the English Renaissance (London: Routledge, 1984), pp. 42“3, 46,
59“60, 292“3; for the polyvalent meanings of folk heroes, see Freist, Governed
by Opinion, p. 210.
40. Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
For twentieth-century analogues, see Alessandro Portelli, ˜Uchronic Dreams:
Working-Class Memory and Possible Worlds™, chapter 10 in Raphael Samuel
and Paul Thompson (eds.), The Myths We Live By (London: Routledge, 1990).
41. Isaiah 40:4; Luke 1:52.
42. See Robert Scribner, For the Sake of Simple Folk (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981), chapter 6.
Notes to pages 93“5 211
43. David Kunzle, ˜World Upside Down: The Iconography of an European Broad-
sheet Type™, in Barbara A. Babcock (ed.), The Reversible World (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1978), pp. 39“94. Nevertheless, the ¬rst example of the motif
he identi¬es in England is used by a conservative, John Taylor, in Mad Fash-
ions, Old Fashions (1642), and it became commonplace in the royalist literature
of the Civil Wars, which some of the Catholic ballads quoted below predate by
several decades. On general notions of reversal in the Civil Wars, see Christo-
pher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (1st edn London: Maurice Temple
Smith, 1972); and Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640“
60 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Reversal has received its most
extensive theoretical treatment in Mikhail Bakhtin™s now familiar notion of
˜carnival™ and critical responses to it: see, for example, the special issues of Crit-
ical Studies, 3:2“4:1/2, on ˜Bakhtin, Carnival and Other Subjects™, ed. David
Shepherd (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991).
44. Scott, Domination, pp. 169“71, drawing on Kunzle, ˜World Upside Down™.
45. BL Add. MS 15,225 [described by the cataloguer as compiled during James I™s
reign but including earlier material].
46. ˜The Great Hodge Podge™, Lancashire Record Of¬ce, DDBL acc. 6121, fols.
137b“138a (quotations f. 137b). All quotations from ˜The Great Hodge Podge™ in
this chapter and chapter 4 are reproduced by kind permission of the depositor
and the County Archivist, Lancashire Record Of¬ce. Another contemporary
text of the poem survives in BL Add. MS 6402, f. 120 (Cole collections).
Margaret Sena discusses this ballad in ˜William Blundell and the Networks
of Catholic Dissent in Post-Reformation England™, chapter 4 in Alexandra
Shepard and Phil Withington (eds.), Communities in Early Modern England
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 62“3. I am grateful to
the author for sharing her transcriptions of Blundell™s work with me, and have
made extensive use of them. On the ballad, see also Woolf, Social Circulation,
pp. 63, 339“40; on the Blundells, see also Frank Tymer, ˜An Account of the
Recusancy of the Blundell of Crosby Family, and the Inhabitants of Little
Crosby in Lancashire™, typescript, 3 vols., Lancashire Record Of¬ce, Preston
(RCLa acc. 6361).
47. Cf. Richard Corbett™s ˜Fairies™ Farewell™: ˜They never daunc™d on any heath
/ As when the Time hath bin™ (The Poems of Richard Corbett, ed. J. A. W.
Bennett and H. R. Trevor-Roper (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), pp. 49“52,
lines 31“2 quoted). See chapter 2, p. 77, and Sena, ˜William Blundell™, p. 63.
Another possibility is that both Blundell and Corbett are employing a phrase
commonly recognised as pro-Catholic.
48. On Catholic nostalgia, see Introduction, pp. 3“5.
49. BL Add. MS 15,225, f. 30a“b: the colons and full stops seem intended as
caesuras. A poem in the same manuscript, ˜Noe wight in this world that wealth
can attaine . . .™ (fols. 7b“9b), describes how the Golden Age was ruined by
personal covetousness.
50. Hospitality in Early Modern England (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), p. 169: see
also Anna Bryson, From Courtesy to Civility (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998); Keith
212 Notes to pages 95“7
Thomas, The Perception of the Past in Early Modern England (London: Univer-
sity of London Press, 1983), pp. 16“17; Woolf, Social Circulation, pp. 61“2; and,
for another contemporary comment on Catholic liberality, Robert Southwell,
An Epistle of Comfort, ed. Margaret Waugh (London: Burns & Oates, 1966),
p. 106.
51. On the Catholic use of elegy, see my Catholicism, Controversy and the English
Literary Imagination, 1558“1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), pp. 175“81.
52. Gerald Bonner, Saint Augustine of Hippo (1963: 3rd edn Norwich: Canterbury
Press, 2002), pp. 253“8. I am grateful to James Austen for this reference.
53. Anon., Keepe Your Text (1619), title page: discussed on p. 90 of Alexandra
Walsham, ˜“Domme Preachers”: Post-Reformation English Catholicism and
the Culture of Print™, P & P, 168 (2000), pp. 72“123. More imaginative work
could also be used for this purpose: the sardonic annotations to the Catholic
Piers Plowman text, quoted on p. 92, remark that it could be used as a means
˜to instruct pap[is]ts how to answe[r] tratorooslye™.
54. The quotation above is taken from this edition. Allison and Rogers believe
the verses are probably not by Martin (ARCR II, no. 516). See also Guiney,
section XIV. On the headings to the poem™s argument, cf. a similar Catholic
polemical verse, in BL Add. MS 23,229 (fol. 82a“b), divided into sections
headed ˜Miracles™, ˜Antiquitie™, ˜Unitie™, ˜Univ[er]sall™ and ˜Succession™.
55. Jean Albin de Valsergues, A Notable Discourse (1575), appendix.
56. One rival is Richard White™s Welsh versi¬cation of Robert Persons™s Brief
Discourse Containing Certain Reasons Why Catholics Refuse To Go To Church,
transcribed in John Hungerford Pollen (ed.), Unpublished Documents Relat-
ing to the English Martyrs, Vol. I, 1584“1603, Catholic Record Society, vol. 5
(London: CRS, 1908), pp. 93“5.
57. Reply to Fulke (1580), f. A1a.
58. Previously attributed to Edward Rishton: see ARCR II, no. 877. For chronolo-
gies of the various versions of the Articles, Protestant answers and further
responses from both sides, see A. C. Southern, Elizabethan Recusant Prose
(this edn. London: Sands, [1950]), pp. 144“5, 519“23; Milward, pp. 40“1 (both
addressing prose versions only). See also ARCR II, nos. 67“72 and 877 (the
connection between prose and rhymed versions being made in the notes to the
latter). The history of the manuscript circulation of the prose Articles deserves
further study; Milward points out that, because of the diversity engendered by
near-simultaneous printed versions circulating at the same time as an incal-
culable number of manuscript versions, not all printed answers can be taken
as referring back to the same version of the Articles: a fact that should also be
borne in mind when considering the rhymed versions. Different prose answers
are also very differently targeted; for instance, the international scholarly audi-
ence is addressed for the ¬rst time only in 1608, with Thomas Worthington™s
two-volume edition of Motiva Omnibus Catholicae Doctrinae . . . Pernecessaria,
a work which Bristow had left un¬nished at his death in 1581. After his arrest,
Campion may have been questioned on points drawn from Bristow™s Motives:
Notes to pages 97“101 213
see Richard Simpson, Edmund Campion (this edn London: John Hodges,
1896), p. 341.
59. See above, note 54.
60. An Answere to a Popish Ryme, Lately Scattered Abroad in the West Parts (1st edn
1604), f. A3a. This has the answer printed after the Articles, but the next edition
of 1608 “ presumably for greater ease of reference “ alternates the text of the
Articles with the answer in sections of two, three or more verses. Both editions
rely heavily on marginal notes to emphasise or back up points made in the
poem. Hieron™s answer actually post-dates John Rhodes™s (see below).
61. Runne from Rome (1640). This is the last given in STC (though Wing may
contain others so far unidenti¬ed). The author is responding to the printed
version: ˜A Rayling pamphlet I have read, / In G. M. [i.e. Gregory Martin] his
name abroad is spread . . .™ (f. A3a).
62. See Milward, p. 41.
63. An Answer to a Romish Rime Lately Printed (1602), f. A2a. The title ˜A Proper
New Ballad . . .™, not used in The Love of the Soule, may indicate a version
aimed towards the cheap-print market which has not survived. For Catholic
pedlars, see Introduction, pp. 16“17.
64. See Margaret Spufford, Small Books and Pleasant Histories (1st edn London:
Methuen, 1981), pp. 10“11, and Alexandra Walsham, ˜“Domme Preachers”:
Post-Reformation English Catholicism and the Culture of Print™, P & P, 168
(2000), pp. 72“123 (esp. pp. 113“14).
65. Cf. the Wiburn broadside below (pp. 109“10).
66. Greek for ˜fertile™. Forbes signs himself P. A. (Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen).
Not noticed in ARCR II.
67. The year after Eubulus appeared, Forbes received a commission to suppress
popery in the diocese of Aberdeen: see Louise B. Taylor (ed.), Aberdeen Council
Letters, 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942“61), vol. 1 (1552“1633),
pp. 290“2. The Jesuit Annual Letters of the Scottish Mission for 1628 suggest
that a rumour that Forbes was a magician may have helped to inspire one
intervention in the lively libelling culture of the Aberdonian Catholics: William
Forbes Leith, SJ, Memoirs of Scottish Catholics during the XVIIth and XVIIIth
Centuries, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909), vol. I, pp. 13“40
(esp. pp. 20, 34).
68. See f. A2a. There are a number of early seventeenth-century Anne/Anna
Gordons: see Robert Douglas, Peerage of Scotland (Edinburgh: Ramsay, 1813),
and William Gordon, History of the Ancient, Noble and Illustrious Family of
Gordon (Edinburgh: Ruddiman, 1726). One possible candidate would be the
daughter of George, 5th Earl/1st Marquis of Huntly, as this was a religiously
divided branch of the family. I am grateful to Jane Pirie of Aberdeen University
Library for this suggestion.
69. If William Fulke is to be believed, the prose version of the Articles was delib-
erately circulated within elite circles in the 1570s: ˜now of late . . . I have seen
it in diverse godly Gentlemens handes, to whome it hath bene delivered by
Papistes, be like to pervert them™ (Two Treatises (1577), f. *iiib).
214 Notes to pages 102“5
70. See below, p. 104.
71. BL Add. MS 10,420, ˜A reply to an answere of a protestant to a ryme intitled
Catholicke questions to the protestants™. It seems to be answering a version of
Hieron™s verse.
72. This line, pointing to the fact that paper may be used as kindling, may also
be intended to recall the ¬ring of the House of Commons in 1605.
73. A Briefe Summe, f. D3b. The pamphlet includes a copy of the libel (f. D2).
Manuscript copies of the libel can be found in BL MS Egerton 2877, fols.
182b“183a (a dated copy from which the quotations are taken); BL MS Harley
677, fols. 50b“51a; and Edinburgh University Library, MS La II 69, f. 18a. The
incident is brie¬‚y commented on by Pauline Croft, ˜Libels, Popular Literacy
and Public Opinion in Early Modern England™, Historical Research, 68 (1995),
pp. 266“85, on p. 281.
74. See below, pp. 110“11, 156.
75. The intention has also been to supplement the attention which Catholic“
Protestant polemical interchanges in prose have received, e.g. from Peter Mil-
ward, Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan (Jacobean) Age (London: Sco-
lar, 1977“8); Southern, Elizabethan Recusant Prose; Anthony Milton, Catholic
and Reformed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Michael C.
Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion, 1580“1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996).
76. A Reply with the Occasion Thereof, to a Late Rayling, Lying, Reprochful and
Blasphemous Libel (1579), side-note to rhyming answer, fols. A4a“B1a.
77. An Answere to a Popish Ryme (1st edn 1604), f. A2a.
78. Strictly speaking, ˜Anglianisme™: see, most recently, Julian Davies, The Caroline
Captivity of the Church (Clarendon: Oxford, 1992), pp. 5, 289, 294.
79. The Mirrour of New Re-Formation (1634), ¬rst published under the title Epi-
grammes c.1634. See ARCR II, nos. 36“7, for questions of attribution. One
of the British Library copies of Epigrammes (C.175.d.20) preserves an epigram
(supposedly voiced by a Protestant) where the original sense has been improved
by a sympathetic reader:
To cheat, calumniate, glosse, deceave, and raile
Is our cheif practise: soe we may prevaile
Gainst our Opponents, all things we avouch
<But greatly care not, what: I think, nor much.>
but care not much what falshood there doth couch.
(Epigram VIII, ˜On the fruits of Protestancie™, f. B2a)
80. Lawrence Manley, Literature and Culture in Early Modern London (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), comments on the epigram™s ˜illusion of
de¬nition, stability and authority™ and how it overlapped with primarily oral
forms like ballads, jests and proverbs (pp. 410“11).
81. The epigram is usually attributed to Sir John Harington, ¬guring as item
263 in his Letters and Epigrams, ed. Norman Egbert Maclure (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1930), where it is entitled ˜Against Swearing™.
See also Gerard Kilroy, Edmund Campion (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), p. 107.
Notes to pages 106“7 215
However, Guiney argues for Fitzsimon™s authorship (pp. 324“5). I am grateful
to Jason Scott-Warren for help on this point.
82. Patrick Forbes, Eubulus (1627), discussed above, pp. 100“1.
83. Printed in T. Broke, Jnr, A Slaunderous Libell (Cast Abroad) Unto an Epitaph
Set Forth Upon the Death of D. E. Boner, With a Reply . . . [c.1569] (quotation
f. A4a). For a similar exchange on Thomas Prideaux™s elegy on Stephen
Gardiner and its refutation, see Richard Warner, Collections for the History
of Hampshire, 5 vols. in 6 (1795), vol. I, part 2, pp. 292“9; Guiney, pp. 109“14,
gives other sources.
84. Libels, especially within Tudor and Stuart political culture, have attracted
considerable scholarly attention in recent years. See Andrew Macrae, Liter-
ature, Satire and the Early Stuart State (Cambridge: Cambridge University

<< . .

 23
( 27)



. . >>

Copyright Design by: Sunlight webdesign