Princesses Mary and Elizabeth Tudor and the Gift Book Exchange 9781641893558

Citation preview

i

PRINCESSES MARY AND ELIZABETH TUDOR AND THE GIFT BOOK EXCHANGE

ii

GENDER AND POWER IN THE PREMODERN WORLD Series Editors Elena Woodacre, University of Winchester Carole Levin, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Simon Doubleday, Hofstra University Susan Broomhall, University of Western Australia

See further: www.arc-humanities.org/our-series/arc/gp/

iii

PRINCESSES MARY AND ELIZABETH TUDOR AND THE GIFT BOOK EXCHANGE by

VALERIE SCHUTTE

iv

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. © 2021, Arc Humanities Press, Leeds

The author asserts their moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

Permission to use brief excerpts from this work in scholarly and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is an exception or limitation covered by Article 5 of the European Union’s Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) or would be determined to be “fair use” under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act September 2010 Page 2 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 USC §108, as revised by P.L. 94–553) does not require the Publisher’s permission. ISBN (HB): 9781641893541 eISBN (PDF): 9781641893558

www.arc-humanities.org Printed and bound in the UK (by CPI Group [UK] Ltd), USA (by Bookmasters), and elsewhere using print-on-demand technology.

v

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� vii Introduction: Partners in Both Book and Manuscript������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Chapter 1. Pre-​accession Book Dedications to Mary and Elizabeth����������������������������������� 9 Chapter 2. Mary’s Pre-​accession Translations�������������������������������������������������������������������������23

Chapter 3. Elizabeth’s Pre-​accession Translations�����������������������������������������������������������������35 Chapter 4. New Year’s Gifts Given and Received by Mary and Elizabeth �����������������������53 Chapter 5. Publishing Princess Elizabeth��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Select Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95

vi

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of

this project requires acknowledging several groups of people and individuals who supported my research and gave immeasurable feedback. First, I would like to thank Carole Levin and Charles Beem, editors of the Queenship and Power series at Palgrave, both of whom are good friends and always offer me unending support in my research. Carole has also been a sounding board for all of my ideas on Elizabeth, as she is a relatively new research subject for me, having previously only concentrated on Queen Mary I. Both Carole and Elena Woodacre also supported this book to go into the Gender and Power in the Premodern World series as a short-​form monograph. I have previously published portions of the third chapter in my 2017 edited collection, Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe, also part of the Queenship and Power series. I would also like to thank the members of the Queen Elizabeth I Society, particularly those in attendance at the 2017 meeting in Austin, Texas for encouragement to take my conclusions further. Likewise, I encountered similar support at the 2018 International Congress on Medieval Studies when I presented portions of my work on Elizabeth on a panel sponsored by the Early Book Society. I also thank the Society for Court Studies for inviting me to present some of my findings at their lecture series in 2018. Thanks to Maria Hayward for sending me a copy of her article on New Year’s gifts; as an independent scholar it is often difficult to retrieve sources, especially articles and book chapters without access to Interlibrary Loan. While doing the majority of the research and writing of this book, I was also co-​editing a major collection on queenship as represented in the works of Shakespeare. I would like to thank my co-​editor, Kavita Mudan Finn, for reading drafts and listening to ideas in between editing Shakespeare chapters. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their never-ending support of my scholarly pursuits, from conferences to research trips to writing: my husband, Blake, for travelling with me; my son, Bates, who has taken an early interest in Tudor history; and, my mother and step-father, Karen and Frank Bauer, for regularly watching my son so I can work in peace. This book is for Frank, who passed away too soon. We miss you every day.

viii

1

INTRODUCTION: PARTNERS IN BOTH BOOK AND MANUSCRIPT

Elizabeth Tudor’s “Virtues

procured Her more Honour and Esteem in all Nations, than all these Ornaments of Industry, Learning, and Ingenuity, though they appeared in Her to an higher and more illustrious degree, than ever was found in any other Lady.”1 Edmund Bohun published these words in his biography of Elizabeth in 1693. Yet, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth’s virtuous, equally learned, elder half-​sister, and first queen regnant of England, is very infrequently, if ever, afforded the same praise. One such source often taken as evidence of Elizabeth’s superiority are the four translations that she undertook as a young princess; they are included in multiple edited collections of Elizabeth’s letters and writings, but nothing of the sort exists for her sister Mary even though she engaged in similar activities. The primary focus of this present study is the four dedications that Elizabeth wrote to Henry VIII, Katherine Parr, and her brother Edward, that accompanied her four pre-​accession translations. Yet, it is clear that to fully understand these dedications, Elizabeth’s work cannot be separated out from that of her sister Mary. The dedications must be examined by themselves, as well as alongside the New Year’s gift-​giving tradition in which she gave them, both her and Mary’s youthful translations, and how her dedications and translations came be to represented after she completed them. Comparing dedications, then, is another way to compare the pre-​accession experiences of Mary and Elizabeth, a time period for both women which is largely ignored for their later years as queens. Importantly, rather than treating the pre-​ accession translations of Elizabeth and Mary as separate and not equal, this study examines them together, as Mary and Elizabeth undertook some of their translations at the exact same time. I show that Mary’s translations need to be considered as important as Elizabeth’s translations, and how in fact, Elizabeth’s translations were of little importance at the time she created them. As such, what follows is skewed more heavily toward Elizabeth, even though it offers analysis of Mary and Elizabeth together to present a more well-​rounded picture of their literary activities before they each became queen. While Elizabeth’s translations are the direct result of her education, and perhaps even exercises required by her tutors, the dedications she wrote to accompany her translations show her own understanding of her place within the royal family.2 What 1 Edmund Bohun, The Character of Queen Elizabeth. Or, A Full and Clear Account of Her Policies, and the Methods of Her Government both in Church and State (London: Chiswell, 1693), 10.

2 Brenda M. Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth, Neo-​Latin, and the Power of the Written Word,” in Elizabeth I in Writing: Language, Power, and Representation in Early Modern England, edited by Donatella Montini and Iolanda Plescia (New  York:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 35.

2

2 Introduction makes the dedications by Elizabeth so exceptional is that they were written by a royal princess. Typically, dedications were given by clients seeking patronage, monetary benefit, or the continuation of a relationship with the dedicatee. Elizabeth, as a royal princess, should not have had to give dedications for patronage or reward, yet she chose to add them to her translations anyway. This is reflective of her precarious status as a second daughter who was bastardized through the annulment of her parents’ marriage.3 Her dedications to her father, stepmother, and brother confirm she had lesser status than Mary; she placed herself in supplication to them, similarly to how authors and translators approached the monarchs. This study suggests that the dedications written by Elizabeth should be seen not only as deferential gifts to her relatives, but should also be interpreted as an effort by a demoted princess to show off her education, make her loyalty well known, and express her desire not to be demoted again. My focus, however, is not the translations as literary works, but simply as the materials that were accompanied by dedications. Moreover, my approach to Elizabeth’s dedications is different from previous scholars’ approaches because almost all previous analyses of Elizabeth’s translations have focused on the translations as a genre, Elizabeth’s linguistic abilities that could not be ignored, Katherine Parr’s inspiration, their place in the religious divide, and have checked for how her translations differed from her source material. Yet, I am not interested if or how she changed Marguerite of Navarre’s tone to be less sexual and more appropriate for an eleven-​year-​old girl. But I am interested in why she gave the texts, and suggest that the dedications will be the best place to find any possible answers. In her essay on translations by Tudor Englishwomen, Brenda M. Hosington argues: “the works of women translators … must be situated within the context of the literary production of the time and aligned with contemporary original compositions and other translations.”4 The same can be said for book dedications. Recent scholarship had made it apparent that dedications are a different genre from translations, although dedications usually accompanied a translated text. In addition to my own publications, Helen Smith has used dedications as evidence of female involvement in book production, and just recently Elizabeth Dearnley has analyzed prologues written by medieval translators, among others who have used dedications as sources separate from the texts to which they were attached.5 Marie-​Alice Belle and Brenda M. Hosington have an Susan James suggests that Elizabeth’s tutors encouraged her to frequently correspond with Katherine so that she would support her education. James, Catherine Parr: Henry VIII’s Last Love (Stroud: The History Press, 2009), 118.

3 Valerie Schutte, Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 64–​65. Judith Richards, Elizabeth I (Oxon: Routledge, 2012), 13, 17–​18.

4 Brenda M. Hosington, “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations of Continental Protestant Texts: The Interplay of Ideology and Historical Context,” in Tudor Translation, ed. Fred Schurink, 121–​42 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 122.

5 Valerie Schutte, Mary I and the Art of Book Dedications (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); Schutte, “Perceptions of Princesses: Pre-​accession Book Dedications to Mary and Elizabeth Tudor,”

3

Introduction

3

entire edited collection that demonstrates the importance of paratexts.6 A dedication was where an author or translator could speak personally to a dedicatee and reveal details about his or her process of book or manuscript creations as well as address the dedicatee with concerns or counsel.7 An analysis of Elizabeth’s dedications is important because in the dedications she directly addresses her dedicatees and explains why she dedicated the text and the process whereby she chose the specific texts to dedicate. By examining the four dedications written by Elizabeth, it is possible to see how a well-​educated young woman presented herself as an author/​translator, princess, and student of another woman author, Katherine Parr. While Katherine Parr appears frequently in the discussions that follow and she was both recipient of two of Elizabeth’s dedications and supporter of one of Mary’s translations, it is not the purpose of this book to re-​evaluate Katherine’s influence over Mary and Elizabeth.8 Katherine had very good relationships with all of Henry’s children. After Katherine Parr married Henry VIII, Mary and Katherine remained good friends and sometimes lodged together. They also “exchanged gifts, shared servants and even in Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens, ed. Valerie Schutte, 63–​83 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017); Helen Smith, “Grossly Material Things”: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Elizabeth Dearnley, Translators and their Prologues in Medieval England (Cambridge: Brewer, 2016).

6 Marie-​Alice Belle and Brenda M. Hosington, eds., Thresholds of Translation: Paratexts, Print, and Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Britain (1473–​1660) (New  York:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). For a theoretical approach, see Kevin Dunn, Pretexts of Authority: The Rhetoric of Authorship in the Renaissance Preface (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994). For other scholarship that uses dedications, see Micheline White, “The Perils and Possibilities of the Early Modern Book Dedication: Anne Lock, Queen Elizabeth, and John Knox,” Parergon: Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association for Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 29, no. 2 (2012): 9–​27; Nieves Baranda Leturio, “Women’s Reading Habits: Book Dedications to Female Patrons in Early Modern Spain,” in Women’s Literacy in Early Modern Spain and the New World, ed. Anne J. Cruz and Rosilie Hernández (Surrey: Ashgate, 2011), 19‒39; John Buchtel, “Book Dedications in Early Modern England: Francis Bacon, George Chapman, and the Literary Patronage of Henry, Prince of Wales” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2004); John Buchtel, “ ‘To the Most High and Excellent Prince’: Dedicating Books to Henry, Prince of Wales,” in Prince Henry Revived: Image and Exemplarity in Early Modern England, ed. Timothy V. Wilks (London: Holberton, 2008), 104–​33; John Buchtel, “Book Dedications and the Death of a Patron: The Memorial Engraving in Chapman’s Homer,” Book History 7 (2004), 1–​29; Tara Wood, “ ‘To the most godlye, virtuos, and myghtye Princess Elizabeth’:  Identity and Gender in the Dedications to Elizabeth I” (PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2008). 7 Felicity Heal has also identified book dedications as “words to laud the recipient and thereby to expose him or her more fully to public view than in the past.” Heal, The Power of Gifts: Gift-​Exchange in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 43. 8 For the influence of Katherine Parr over her stepchildren, the seminal work is still James McConica, even though it has since been shown that McConica’s thesis of Katherine providing a scholarly nursery was overstated. James McConica, English Humanists and Reformation Politics Under Henry VIII and Edward VI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).

4

4 Introduction wrote courtesy letters on the same sheet of paper.”9 While Katherine may have supported Mary’s return to the succession, Mary did not need to go through Katherine to get to her father and restore her reputation. Mary never lost her reputation, even if she did fall from favor based on her relationship with her father’s current wife, just her title. As Henry’s eldest child, and considered by many to be his rightful heir, Mary always had more power at court, although her relationship with her father was frequently troubled. Elizabeth, however, needed Katherine as an intermediary to her father. It is well known that Elizabeth had an exceptional education and was well-​ regarded for both her reading and writing abilities as well as her knowledge of foreign languages. Though Elizabeth’s childhood and pre-​accession years are always treated by biographers, they are done so in myriad different ways. Not surprisingly, older biographies, such as that by J. E. Neale, address the situation around Elizabeth, but really not the demoted princess herself.10 Some address her education, while others do not at all. Susan Doran offers an inclusive biography of Elizabeth’s pre-​accession years. Doran gives mainly a timeline of events for Elizabeth during her father and brother’s reigns, only really suggesting that it is difficult to discern the relationship Elizabeth had with her father and her feelings toward her dead mother. Like many historians, she highlights Elizabeth’s education (although she does not find Elizabeth to be any brighter or more knowledgeable than other educated females of her time) and suggests Elizabeth’s truly formative years were during Edward and Mary’s reigns when she was accused of sexual indiscretion with Thomas Seymour and possibly involved in plots against Mary. These events most likely shaped her later decisions regarding marriage, childbearing, and naming an heir.11 Judith M. Richards suggests that it is difficult to know the real Princess Elizabeth because of the propaganda produced to shape her reputation later.12 Most at least mention her youthful translations.13 What they tend to have in common is the focus on the Seymour Affair and her possible role in Wyatt’s Rebellion. Yet, for these being some of the most formative events in her pre-​accession years, next to her mother’s execution, only one full-​length study has been written on Elizabeth and the Seymour Affair and none of Elizabeth during Mary’s reign.14 9 Aysha Pollnitz, “Religion and Translation at the Court of Henry VIII: Princess Mary, Katherine Parr, and the Paraphrases of Erasmus,” in Mary Tudor: Old and New Perspectives, ed. Susan Doran and Thomas S. Freeman (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 130. 10 J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth (London: Cape, 1934, reprinted London: Penguin, 1988). 11 Susan Doran, Queen Elizabeth I (New York: New York University Press, 2003), 8–​34.

12 Richards, Elizabeth I, 190.

13 Frank A. Mumby, The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth, a Narrative in Contemporary Letters (London: Constable, 1909), 24–​26. Anne Somerset, Elizabeth I (New York: Knopf, 1991), 13.

14 Elizabeth Norton, The Temptation of Elizabeth Tudor: Elizabeth I, Thomas Seymour, and the Making of a Virgin Queen (New York: Pegasus, 2016). Sheila Cavanagh has also written an article about Elizabeth and the Seymour affair. Cavanagh, “The Bad Seed: Princess Elizabeth and the Seymour Incident,” in Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana, ed. Julia M. Walker (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), 9–​29.

5

Introduction

5

The historiography of Elizabeth’s pre-​accession years focuses on events after the death of her father, most likely because scholars are looking for connections to her later behavior as queen. Only three books have focused solely on Elizabeth’s pre-​accession years, and one of them spends its final seven chapters covering Elizabeth’s years as queen to show the impact of her upbringing on her style of rule.15 Even in Carole Levin’s groundbreaking cultural biography of Elizabeth, she boils Elizabeth’s childhood down to her stepmothers and the Seymour Affair.16 What has recently received the most scholarly attention is Elizabeth’s education.17 As Susan Frye astutely notes, “picturing Elizabeth Tudor as a young woman can be a difficult historical project, in part because one of the principal obstacles to imagining the young Elizabeth is Elizabeth herself.” Furthermore, “representations of her political youth continue to obscure Elizabeth’s physical youth.”18 Overall, it is obvious that her princess years are understudied and it is hard to separate the successes of her rule from her childhood; she must have been smart because she was a good queen. Yet, we lack the sources, and many sources that do exist during her reign and later exaggerate her childhood sufferings and achievements in propaganda for her as queen. While this book obviously does not address all of these points, it offers a different facet for understanding some existing sources: her own words separate from her translations. This study is one effort to recover Elizabeth’s physical youth through the translations she undertook and the New Year’s gifts that she gave, as well as contextualizing her youth with that of her sister. Mary has certainly fared worse in her historiographical treatment, as “until very recently it has been customary, among historians of the Tudors, to contrast Mary unfavorably with Elizabeth, not only in their comparative success or failure as rulers by also in their intellectual ability and the quality of the education which they received.”19 In the last decade or so Mary’s reign has been re-​evaluated, yet like Elizabeth much of her childhood is unexplored except through the lens of those around her. Mary still suffers from Sir Geoffrey Elton’s assumption that she was “arrogant, assertive, bigoted, stubborn, suspicious and (not to put too fine a point on it) rather stupid.”20 Over the course of this study it will become apparent that Elton’s assessment was simply wrong. 15 Mumby, The Girlhood of Queen Elizabeth. David Starkey, Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne (London: Chatto and Windus, 2000). Louis Wiesener, La jeunesse d’Elisabeth d’Angleterre, 1533–​58 (Paris, 1878). The next year it was translated into English. Wiesener, The Youth of Queen Elizabeth, 1553–​58. Edited from the French by Charlotte M. Yonge, 2 vols. (London, 1879).

16 Carole Levin, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power, 2nd ed (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013).

17 For the most recent work on Elizabeth’s education, see Aysha Pollnitz, Princely Education in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 11, 241–​63.

18 Susan Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess: Early Self-​Representations in a Portrait and a Letter,” in The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World, 1500–​2000 (New York: Berghahn, 2006). 19 John Edwards, Mary I: The Daughter of Time (London: Allen Lane, 2016), 21.

20 Sir Geoffrey Elton, Reform and Reformation: England 1509–​1558 (London: Arnold, 1977), 376.

6

6 Introduction In light of these gaps in the historiography for both Elizabeth and Mary’s pre-​ accession years, this study re-​evaluates important literary achievements made by both princesses before they became queens. Chapter 1 is an analysis of the book dedications that were given to Princesses Elizabeth and Mary to show how Elizabeth’s dedications were part of a genre that used supplication and modesty to make a personal connection with the recipient of the dedication. These dedications also show how both Mary and Elizabeth were perceived as princesses by their dedicators and perhaps influenced how Elizabeth wrote her own dedications to shape others’ perceptions of her. Chapter 2 concentrates on Mary’s translations. Unlike those by Elizabeth, neither had an accompanying dedication and she did not give either as New Year’s gifts. Rather, one of Mary’s translations was meant for circulation at court, and was likely under the instruction and supervision of her mother, Catherine of Aragon, while the other was published as part of a large-​scale English translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrases. Mary’s own princess-​era translations may have influenced Elizabeth’s translations, although she had other influences too, such as her tutors and even Katherine Parr.21 Chapter 3 is the crux of my interpretation of Elizabeth, offering an examination of the four dedications alongside an explanation of the texts that they accompany. I suggest that Elizabeth had to give Henry, Edward, and Katherine Parr translated texts with dedications to both prove her loyalty and show her desire to not be demoted from the royal family, and possibly the succession, again. To greater emphasize the singularity and importance of Elizabeth’s dedications, Chapter 4 examines extant New Year’s gift-​exchange information for the years in which Elizabeth gave her translated manuscripts to her relatives. In it, I examine what Mary and Elizabeth gave their father, brother, and their stepmother at this time and what the sisters received in return. This will give us a glimpse as to how each princess understood her own position at court and within her immediate family. It is important to know what Elizabeth received and what she gave other relatives as a way to explain the great undertaking of these manuscript gifts. Chapter 5 concentrates on the printed publications of Elizabeth’s translation of Marguerite of Navarre’s Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse. Editions of the translations of both princesses appeared in print in 1548; Mary’s Gospel of John was printed in January 1548 and Elizabeth’s The Glass of the Sinful Soul was printed in April 1548. The compilers of these printed editions “presented Mary and Elizabeth as crucial participants in the Edwardian regime and suggested that they possessed a measure of political agency.”22 Elizabeth’s translation was printed five times by the end of the sixteenth century and was handwritten in one presentation manuscript at the beginning of the seventeenth century. With each compiler and editor of Elizabeth’s translation came new meaning and representations of Elizabeth as a princess and queen. Neither princess appears to have made any attempt to censor any printed editions. 21 Jaime Goodrich, Faithful Translators: Authorship, Gender, and Religion in Early Modern England (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2014), 88. 22 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 67.

7

Introduction

7

This study contributes to the ongoing scholarship of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor by comparing the actions of the sisters as princesses through the lens of their pre-​ accession translations and dedications. Did Elizabeth have to give personal translations in intricately embroidered bindings to be noticed? Did she give them as a reminder of her royal status? Or, did she give them as a “thank you” for beginning her formal education at the same time she was put into the succession? Perhaps she wanted to show that she was just as educated and talented as Mary, her older sister, who probably had a better relationship with her father and stepmother and was certainly more revered at court. Were these translations her attempts to show her feminine skills and hopefully get a good marriage match, unlike her sister who was still unmarried at nearly thirty years old? There really could have been so many motivating factors for Elizabeth to give these translations and her dedications offer the closest evidence that exists as to why she gave them and her intended effect. This book hopes to answer at least some of these questions.

8

9

Chapter 1

PRE-​ACCESSION BOOK DEDICATIONS TO MARY AND ELIZABETH

For all of

the available scholarship on Mary and Elizabeth, there is surprisingly little on them as princesses apart from their educations, and there is no one study that examines their joint experiences as princesses without exploring it from the angle of either their father or one of their mothers. This chapter turns to the traditional offering of book and manuscript dedications to Mary and Elizabeth before they became queens to examine what kinds of books the sisters received and how dedicators perceived them as princesses and demoted royal ladies. It will also serve as contextualization for the later discussion of Elizabeth’s own dedications to her family members in the third chapter. This chapter suggests book and manuscript dedications as a new avenue for comparing the sister princesses and offers insight as to how each of these women were treated as daughters of the king, potential heirs to the throne, and disinherited ladies.1 Specifically, this chapter covers the periodicity of the dedicated books and manuscripts, the type of books dedicated to the sisters, and finally how dedicators perceived the sisters’ importance within the royal family. I suggest that prior to their accessions, dedicators perceived Mary and Elizabeth very differently, with Mary assumed to have influence at court and means to give patronage, while Elizabeth was perceived to be irrelevant to court politics and have little or no patronage power.

Dedication Dating

Over the course of their lifetimes, Mary and Elizabeth received over 250 manuscript and printed book dedications.2 Before Mary became queen she received nineteen total dedications (eight print and eleven manuscript), many more so than each of her royal siblings received, with Edward receiving five and Elizabeth receiving seven (four print

1 Portions of this chapter were previously published in Schutte, “Perceptions of Princesses.”

2 I have previously published a monograph that examines all printed book and manuscript dedications to Mary, along with a chapter that reconstructs Mary’s personal library. Especially relevant to this discussion is the chapter on dedications given to Mary when she was a princess. Schutte, Mary I. Similarly, Tara Wood has explored only printed book dedications to Elizabeth and their impact on creating national identity and national unity. Wood, “ ‘To the most godlye, virtuos, and myghtye Princess Elizabeth’: Identity and Gender in the Dedications to Elizabeth I” (PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2008). See also Valerie Schutte, “Perceptions of Sister Queens:  A Comparison of Printed Book Dedications to Mary and Elizabeth Tudor,” Sederi Yearbook 27 (2017): 149–​66.

10

10 Pre-accession Book Dedications and three manuscript).3 Most likely this is because Mary did not inherit the throne until she was thirty-​seven, compared to Edward being nine and Elizabeth being twenty-​five. Yet age was not the only factor. Not only was Mary the elder daughter, but she was also generally considered to be more legitimate than Elizabeth because of the reputations of their respective mothers. Over the course of her lifetime Mary was also a princess and disinherited, but she was still considered to be the rightful heir for most Catholics, so she received much more attention than Elizabeth. The Spanish ambassadors to England continued to refer to Mary as “the princess” in their letters, while Elizabeth (very rarely even mentioned) was referred to as the daughter of Anne Boleyn.4 As for Elizabeth, her seven pre-​accession dedications confirm that she was not considered to be very important or a possible heir before she became queen, especially as she was only a princess for three years before she was demoted to a lady, and as a second daughter was of relatively little interest.5 As a princess (and demoted lady), Mary received eight printed book dedications. These specifically addressed education and virtue. Dedicators used their dedications to instruct Mary in foreign languages, classical literature and philosophy, and religion, with an ever-​present backdrop of humanism.6 Importantly, there were several gaps in the years in which Mary received printed book dedications, as unsurprisingly, dedications to Mary closely followed the politics of the time. Mary received three printed book dedications in the 1520s (1524, 1525, and 1526) when she was the king’s only living legitimate child, but did not receive any during the time in which Henry was seeking an annulment from Catherine of Aragon and it was much more important to seek the patronage of the king rather than his daughter whom he claimed was illegitimate. To dedicate to Mary at that time would have been to take a stance against the king’s cause. Mary received one printed book dedication in 1533, and as will be discussed below, she shared this dedication with Elizabeth. It was nine years before Mary was given another printed book dedication in 1542, and the earliest extant printed edition of this book is from 1555, so it may have only existed in manuscript copy earlier. Mary was given two more printed book dedications in the 1540s, one in 1545 and another in 1549, and one final printed book dedication in 1550. These dates again correlate to Mary’s position at court. In 1544 Mary had just been restored to the succession, so she was again in favor and possibly even influential in 1545. For the dedications in 1549 and 1550, Mary was recognized as King Edward’s heir and one of the wealthiest land holders in England, so 3 See Franklin B. Williams, Jr. Index of Dedications and Commendatory Verses in English Books Before 1641 (London:  Bibliographical Society, 1962). When used alongside the Short Title Catalogue (STC) and the database Early English Books Online (EEBO), this finding aid allows English book dedications to be easily researched. 4 Letter from Ambassador Mendoza to the Emperor, dated September 14, 1538. Letter from Eustace Chapuys to the Emperor, dated August 13, 1543. Calendar of State Papers, Spain. 5 Richards, Elizabeth I, 13, 17–​18.

6 See Schutte, Mary I, 33–​48 for a full discussion of book and manuscripts dedicated to Princess Mary.

11

Pre-accession Book Dedications

11

next to the king and members of his council, she would have been the most important person to appeal to for patronage. The periodicity of the eleven manuscript dedications given to Mary is more difficult, as many do not contain dates, and dating must be inferred from language used within the manuscript. James P. Carley has provided date ranges for eight manuscripts dedicated to Mary by Henry Parker, Lord Morley using handwriting, decoration, and the inclusion or exclusion of any of Mary’s royal relatives and Henry’s wives.7 No pre-​accession manuscripts dedicated to Mary appear to have been given to her before 1537, although she may have been given manuscripts that are no longer extant. Seven manuscripts can be dated to sometime during her father’s lifetime after 1537. The other four were given to Mary during Edward’s reign, with only one having a certain date of 1553. Most likely, these dedicated manuscripts follow similar dating to the printed books, in that they would have been given to her when she was in favor. Likewise, before Elizabeth became queen she only received one printed dedication during her father’s reign, a French textbook that was also dedicated to Mary, and six dedications during the reign of her brother, three each of print and manuscript. Elizabeth was given one manuscript dedication in March 1547, two printed book dedications in 1548, two more manuscript dedications circa 1550, and one final printed dedication in 1551. This is very much indicative of Elizabeth’s precarious position at the Tudor court; as Henry’s second illegitimate daughter she received much less attention than her other two royal siblings during Henry’s lifetime.8 However, it is interesting that she received no dedications of any kind during the three New Years, 1545–​1547, in which she actively gave manuscripts with dedications to her father and Katherine Parr. This bolsters my suggestion that even though Elizabeth was back in favor and in the line of succession she still did not have a stable position at court and had to appeal to her father and stepmother rather than be someone who others appealed to. Even during Edward’s reign she was not considered to be very important, “despite some later romantic tales about the close friendship between brother and sister.”9 Yet she received five dedications within four years, all of which dealing with evangelical religion, because it was known that she was more accepting of it than was her sister Mary.

Dedicating to a Princess

The twenty-​six pre-​accession printed book and manuscript dedications that Mary and Elizabeth received covered a variety of subject matter. The most common subject was 7 James P. Carley, “The Writings of Henry Parker, Lord Morley: A Bibliographic Survey,” in “Triumphs of English”: Henry Parker, Lord Morley Translator to the Tudor Court, ed. James P. Carley and Marie Axton (London: British Library, 2000), 27–​68. See especially 34–​36 on Morley’s New Year’s gifts to Mary.

8 Richards, Elizabeth I, 194. Maria Dowling, Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII (Kent: Croom Helm, 1986), 238. 9 Richards, Elizabeth I, 195.

12

12 Pre-accession Book Dedications religion, specifically traditional religion when directed to Mary and evangelical religion when directed to Elizabeth, totaling fourteen dedications. The second most frequent subject matter was education, or textbooks meant to further both of the girls’ humanist educations, including a grammar textbook,10 a French textbook,11 and a treatise containing mottos.12 The remainder of the books dedicated to the princesses covered topics from astrology to knowledge of foreign countries to virtue. These books, when dedicated to Mary, were usually generic efforts by an author or translator to appeal to Mary for patronage, while the one dedication that Elizabeth received not directly related to religion or her education accompanied a book on astrology that William Buckley wrote specifically for her to accompany an horary ring that she commissioned from him.13 Ten of the dedicated books to Mary and four of the books dedicated to Elizabeth addressed religion. Mary, like her mother, was known to be a staunch Catholic, and the books given to Mary covered traditional, Catholic religious thought, with some of the dedications clearly addressing heresy and anti-​reform. In 1526, Paul Bush wrote that Mary is virtuous by nature, and therefore should enjoy reading his book containing verses from both the Old and New Testaments. As Mary was only ten at the time, Bush is straightforward in that his desire is patronage from both her and her parents, as he is their servant and offers them his “fydelyte.”14 In 1549, John Proctor, a schoolmaster, gave Mary The Fal of the Late Arrian, in which he wrote of an unnamed man who was recently accused of the Arian heresy.15 Arianism, in which Jesus was not equal to God but a creation made by Him, first appeared in the third century and resurfaced in the early sixteenth century as the Reformation spread. Proctor’s book has since been identified as about Arian supporter John Ashton, as Ashton was a priest who recanted his Arian views in front of Thomas Cranmer in late 1548.16 In the dedication, Proctor went so far as to compare Princess Mary to the Virgin Mary, whom had recently been honored with the fall of the late Arian. For Proctor, Mary 10 Thomas Linacre, Rudimenta grammatices Thomae Linacri diligenter castigate denuo (London: Richard Pynson, 1525?). STC 15636.

11 Giles Duwes, An introductory for to lerne to rede, to pronounce, and to speake Frenche trewly, compiled for the right high, excellent, and most vertuous lady, the lady Mary of Englande, doughter to our most gracious souerayn lorde kyng Henry the eight (London: Thomas Godfray, 1533?). STC 7377.

12 Juan Luis Vives, Introductio ad sapientiam; Satellitium sive Symbola; Epistolae duae de Ratione Studii Puerilis (Louvain: Peter Martens, 1524). 13 BL, Royal MS 12 A XXV.

14 Paule Bush, Here begynneth a lytell treatyse in Englysshe, called the extripacion of ignorancy: and it treateth and speketh of the ignorance of people, shewyng them howe they are bounde to feare god, to loue god, and to honour their prince (London: Richar Pynson, 1526), Aii. STC 4186. 15 John Proctor, The fal of the late Arrian (London: William Powell, 1549). STC 20406.

16 Diarmaid MacCullouch, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London:  Penguin, 1999), 238n30. George T.  Buckley, “Who Was ‘The late Arrian’?,” Modern Language Notes 49 (1934), 500–​503.

13

Pre-accession Book Dedications

13

is in high resemblance to her namesake, the Virgin Mary, “that in some mans head, wytte myght well gather, and reason conclude not a misse, one, & the same soule to be bothe, the bodyes onely chaunged, accordyng to Pythagoras lawe.”17 While Proctor was clearly exaggerating to make his point, Princess Mary was both virgin and pious, and therefore should be honored as a perfect example of Catholic womanhood. The following year, 1550, Thomas Paynell dedicated The piththy and moost notable sayinges of al scripture to Mary in hopes that she “use the profitable doctrines of this little boke: for so doynge, youre grace shall learne dayly more and more, truly to know the Lord.”18 Paynell had previously dedicated a book to Mary in 1545, and this one, like the first, encouraged Mary to safeguard both her virtue and her commitment to God. In his three-​page dedication, it is very obvious that Paynell had personal knowledge of Mary or at least had an established patronage relationship with her; not only does he call himself her “daylye Orator” and “humble seruaunt,” but he also is aware of her desire to increase her spirituality and support those around her who do the same.19 Paynell acknowledges that though his text does not need “any mans tuition or defense” because it is a collection of passages from Scripture, Mary’s “fyery and feruent mynde to virtuous and godly liuing” and reputation for showing favor to those who promote the “sincere worde of god” inspired him to “publishe it in your graces name.”20 Paynell places himself as her client by asking her to accept his text as a gift, yet also counsels her to read these words daily to better know God, saying that she should “rede the fruiteful lessons therof and digest them thorowly … for so doynge, youre grace shall learne … to be his faithfull and obsequines handmayden.”21 Paynell notes that though his book “be but little,” it is precious, “for precious stones are of themselues in quantitie but lytle,” most likely referring to Proverbs 8:11, which asserts that wisdom is more precious than rubies.22 Finally, Paynell offers his book to Mary as a gift, asking her to “accepte this my labour and small gift in good parte,” knowing that giving a gift had an implied protocol in which the receiver was obligated to give something in return, in this case, patronage and support for his text.23 Yet, while this dedication did not explicitly praise Mary for her Catholicism, it did note that she was known to be pious and was a supporter of those who spread knowledge of Scripture. 17 Proctor, The fal, Aiiii.r.

18 Thomas Paynell, The piththy and moost notable sayinges of al scripture, gathered by Thomas Paynell: after the manner of common places, very necessary for al those that delite in the consolacions of the scriptures (London: Thomas Gaultier at the expense of Robert Toye, 1550), Aii.r. STC 19494. 19 Paynell, Scripture, A.i.v. All quotations come from the 1550 edition. 20 Paynell, Scripture, A.i.v.

21 Paynell, Scripture, A.i.v to A.ii.r. 22 Paynell, Scripture, A.ii.r.

23 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 88–​89, 91.

14

14 Pre-accession Book Dedications Henry Parker, Lord Morley, gave Mary at least seven manuscripts as New Year’s gifts, six of which were religious in nature.24 In his dedications to Mary, Morley frequently mentions Mary’s study of the psalms and recalls speaking with Mary at Honesden about a psalm,25 how Mary must stay away from texts that mention heresy and diminish the importance of the sacrament of the altar because they currently lived in a time where men were blinded by heresy,26 and offers Mary translations by both Christian doctors and ancient philosophers because they all promoted virtue and were correctives to evangelical texts, even though they did not specifically promote Catholicism. Morley also counseled Mary to be aware of heresies that diminished the importance of the Virgin Mary and denied the sacrament of the altar.27 In all of his dedications, Morley consistently reminds Mary of her high birth and the “excellent bloude that ye are comme of,” and supports her royal position even though she can no longer use the title of princess.28 In what was likely the last dedication given to Mary before she became queen, Frenchman Hierome Colas offered Mary a text about a dispute between a Christian man and a Turkish atheist.29 This dispute, he suggested, was ultimate proof of the validity of Christianity. Colas’ text is dated June 1553, approximately five weeks before Edward died. His dedication to Mary is rather generic and does not speak to her personally other than to note that she must be blessed because she possesses good morals. Dedications of religious texts given to Elizabeth, although there were only four, were much more evangelical in nature, especially as all were given to her when her brother was king. In 1548, Walter Lynne presented Elizabeth with an English translation of works by Martin Luther and Urbanus Regius, two continental reformers, because she was “syster to the kynges moost Royal Maiestie.”30 Lynne was a native of Antwerp who found great success in England translating works of continental reformers into English. Along with his dedication to Elizabeth, Lynne dedicated works to Edward VI and Anne, Duchess of Somerset, from both of whom he received patronage.31 Lynne 24 BL, Royal MS 17 C.XVI; BL, Royal MS A.XV; BL, Royal MS 17 A.XLVI; BL, Royal MS D.XXVIII; BL, Royal MS 17 C.XII; BL, Royal MS 17 A.XXX. 25 BL, Royal MS 18 A. XV.

26 BL, Royal MS 17 A. XLVI.

27 BL, Royal MS 17 A XLVI, 1b.

28 BL Royal MS 17 C.XII, fol. 3a. 29 BL, Royal MS 8 A. XVI.

30 Martin Luther, A frutefull and godly exposition and declaracion of the kyngdom of Christ and of the christen lybertye, made vpo[n]‌the wordes of the prophete Jeremye in the xxij. chapter, with an exposycyon of the viij. Psalme, intreatyng of the same matter, by the famous clerke Doctor Martyn Luther, whereunto is annexed A godly sermon, of Doctor Urbanus Regius, vpon the ix (London: S. Mierdman, 1548), Aii.r. STC 16982. 31 Andrew Pettegree, “Walter Lynne,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Hereafter cited as ODNB.

15

Pre-accession Book Dedications

15

chose to focus on texts relating to the Kingdom of Christ because the change in reign of Henry to Edward meant that this is “the tyme of Christes raygne and kyngedome, wherin the Gospel is the rule of the princely powers.”32 He both attempted to please Elizabeth with his translations of Luther and Regius and use her as an example of a virtuous female whom he hoped others would follow. Lynne commits his labor to Elizabeth not only as a token of goodwill, but also for the “furthering … the trueth of Christ.”33 Here, Lynne offers a typical dedication that praised his dedicatee, explained his text selection, and pleaded supplication and for support. He also attempted to use Elizabeth’s name and potential endorsement for his text as a means to support a more evangelical religious settlement than had been provided by her father. Under Edward, Elizabeth received more favor from reformers for three main reasons: mainly because drastic reform was not tolerated by Henry, but also because Elizabeth was closer to the throne and her sister was known not to accept and support reform at all. Likewise, John Á Lasco, a Polish reformer, presented Elizabeth with a translation of Absoluta de Christi domini et Catholicae eius ecclesiae sacramentis by reformer Heinrich Bullinger.34 In the dedication not only does Lasco promote Bullinger’s ideas, but he assumes that Elizabeth will advance reform through the gifts and talents given to her by God.35 In 1550, Elizabeth received a dedication prefacing a religious text from Jean Belmain, her tutor who helped her select the Calvin text for Katherine Parr, who dedicated a translation from Greek to French of a letter by St. Basil to St. Gregory on the virtues of single life.36 Belmain begins his dedication by telling Elizabeth that he has been waiting to find and introduce something worthy of presenting to her. He has selected a letter by St. Basil “in which he strongly recommends solitary life,” or at least away from the temptations of worldly life.37 Based on this line, David Starkey seems to read too much into Belmain’s gift to Elizabeth, when he suggests that Belmain must have known that Elizabeth already declared herself to be lifelong single.38 Rather, it is more likely that Belmain selected this text because it stressed the importance of living simply so as to better worship God. In fact, Elizabeth was already following the advice that Belmain was passing on, as she had recently adopted plainer dress in the aftermath of the Seymour Affair of 1549, in an effort to outwardly show her virtue and piety. 32 Luther, A frutefull and godly exposition, Aii.r. 33 Luther, A frutefull and godly exposition, Aiii.r.

34 Heinrich Bullinger, Absoluta de Christi domini et Catholicae eius ecclesiae sacramentis, tractatio, autore Henrico Bullengero (London: Stephanus Myerdmannus, 1551). STC 4042.4. 35 Bullinger, Absoluta, 4v. “Ut dotes tuas quas a domino ita opulente in te collatas habes, conferas ad propadandam Dei gloriam in Ecclesia ipsius.”

36 BL, Royal MS 16 E I. See Perry, The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1990), 48. 37 BL, Royal MS 16 E I, 2r. “En laquelle il recommande fort la vie solitaire.” 38 Starkey, Elizabeth, 86.

16

16 Pre-accession Book Dedications Belmain speaks to the importance of Basil’s message, noting “and that is why my translation almost follows the text word for word.”39 Here, Belmain echoes Elizabeth’s own words to Katherine Parr, in which she offered her translation of Calvin as word for word. Likely, as with Elizabeth, Belmain was not doing this to prove his translation skills to her, but to link the important of the written word and a person’s relationship to God. More literally, he warns her that bad translations are available, a topic they probably discussed during their lessons together. Belmain ends his dedication by praying that God preserves her and gives her a long life, a very standard concluding line for a dedication. This was not the only text that Belmain dedicated to a member of the royal family. In 1553, Belmain dedicated two manuscripts to King Edward, a glossary of French terms that he presented him for New Year’s and a translation of the Edward’s Second Prayer book that he gave Edward that April.40 As Mary and Belmain had no connection, there is no evidence that he presented any books to Mary. Belmain did give Elizabeth “a booke finly printed De la Vie de Morte coverid with Crimsen Satten allouer enbrauderid with golde. Delyvered to the said Mrs. Blaunche Apparye,” yet there is no evidence that the book is extant.41 Finally, in an undated manuscript, Belmain translated Katherine Parr’s Lamentacion of a Sinner into French verse, again relating back to Elizabeth and her previous translations to Katherine.42 Also linked to Elizabeth’s own dedications and translations, the final religious text dedicated to Elizabeth came from John Bale, and was actually his edited version of Elizabeth’s translation of Marguerite of Navarre’s text that Elizabeth gave to Katherine Parr. It will be discussed in detail in its own chapter below. These dedications to Elizabeth accompanying religious texts show that what little influence Elizabeth did have was assumed to be in religion. Unlike Mary, she never publicly declared her allegiance to Catholicism or even to her father’s religious settlement, so supporters of reform offered her evangelical religious texts in the hopes of receiving her own support for them. Moreover, dedications to Elizabeth that focused on religion show how dedicators could frame their dedications so as to seem to have support from a royal patron and how that royal person may have little control over how their name was invoked.43 The four reformist dedicators wrote to Elizabeth to try to get her to further their cause or to use her name for it. The sisters also received dedications to textbooks as a means to further their educations. Indeed, Mary received three and Elizabeth received two. Mary received her 39 BL, Royal MS 16 E I, 2r. “Et s’ainsy est quen ma traduction i’aye quasi suiuy le texte mot pour mot.” 40 BL, Add. 74745 and BL, Royal MS 20 A XIV.

41 Jane A. Lawson, “This Remembrance of the New Year: Books Given to Queen Elizabeth as New Year’s Gifts.” In Elizabeth I and the Culture of Writing, ed. Peter Beal and Grace Ioppolo (London: British Library, 2007), 162, 163, 165. 42 BL, Royal MS 16 E XXVIII.

43 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 246.

17

Pre-accession Book Dedications

17

first in 1524 from Juan Luis Vives, a Spanish humanist scholar with a close relationship to Catherine of Aragon, who dedicated Satellitium sive Symbola to Mary, a book containing 213 symbola, or mottos, which were meant to instruct her in how to be both wise and virtuous. Vives also instructed Mary to remain virtuous and to guard both her body and soul from evil-​doers.44 In this dedication, Vives twice mentioned Catherine of Aragon, both for requesting these symbola and for serving as such a model example for Mary, showing how involved and qualified Catherine was to run her daughter’s early education. Both Elizabeth and Edward later used Satellitium in their own educational training.45 Interestingly Vives addressed Mary as “Mariae Principi Cambriae,” Princess of Wales, showing that Mary was in fact understood to be her father’s legitimate heir.46 Thomas Linacre also wrote a grammar book for Mary’s instruction, Rudimenta grammatices, written sometime between 1519 and 1524, but not printed until 1525.47 In a tract dedicated to Catherine of Aragon that Vives specifically wrote for Mary’s education, Vives even suggested that Mary use Linacre’s textbook.48 Linacre’s one-​ page Latin dedication is juxtaposed alongside his all-​English grammar text, and in the dedication Linacre notes that Mary is excellent in birth and prominent among women and that his book will help her to excel in learning as well. The third textbook dedicated to Princess Mary was also dedicated to Princess Elizabeth. Giles Duwes printed his French textbook in 1533 with separate dedications to Mary and Elizabeth, although he originally composed the book in 1524. Duwes was employed in the royal household since the reign of Henry VII and served as French tutor to all of his children. Duwes later served as royal librarian until he became a member of Mary’s household.49 As Mary’s childhood French tutor, he wrote a French textbook for her studies while she resided in the Welsh Marches in 1525. Duwes divided his textbook into two parts, one of which contained a dedication to Mary, and the other contained a dedication to Henry VIII, Queen Anne, and Princess Elizabeth. Book I, that dedicated to Mary, was the grammar portion of his textbook. Duwes’ dedication to Mary was a small paragraph: “To the lady Mary. For the honour of Mary God doughter to saynt Mary Virgin and mother Jesu christ have these verses ben written.”50 Immediately following 44 Vives, Satellitium sive Symbola. 45 Edward VI. Literary Remains of King Edward VI, ed. John Gough Nichols, 2 vols. (London: Nichols, 1857), vol. 1, 3.

46 For a discussion of Mary’s status as Princess of Wales, see Charles Beem, “Princess of Wales? Mary Tudor and the History of English Heirs to the Throne,” in The Birth of a Queen: Essays on the Quincentenary of Mary I, ed. Sarah Duncan and Valerie Schutte, 13–​30 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). 47 Previously, I  have mis-​identified Linacre as Prince Arthur’s tutor, but David R.  Carlson has shown that Linacre did not serve in that position. Schutte, Mary I, 35–​36. Carlson, “Royal Tutors in the Reign of Henry VII,” Sixteenth Century Journal 22 (Spring 1991), 261–​64.

48 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 231. 49 Carlson, “Royal Tutors,” 276–​78. 50 Duwes, An introductory, Aii.r.

18

18 Pre-accession Book Dedications the dedication is a general prologue, in which Duwes again mentions Mary, noting that she “hath me commanded and encharged” to have his textbook printed.51 Mary probably wanted Duwes to print his text in 1533 because she had a new little half-​sister, for whom the lessons could also be useful, but the text and its contents would also remind its readers that Mary was daughter to the king first. However, with the birth of Elizabeth, Mary’s status was demoted from princess to lady, and Duwes made his salutations to Mary reflect her new status. Book II is comprised of a series of dialogues written in both French and English. These dialogues consist of “conversations” between Mary, both of her parents, messengers, continental royalty, and members of her household. This second book is prefaced by a brief dedication to King Henry VIII, Queen Anne Boleyn, and Princess Elizabeth, in which Duwes askes for “laude euerlastyng” for the Henry, while for Anne and Elizabeth: And to you most illustre /​right excellente /​and right magnanime/​lady and princeffe/​ my lady Anne by the grace of god Quene of Englande/​and of France with right noble and moft vertuoufe/​your right dere and well beloued doughter Elizabeth Princeffe of Englande and of Wales: be lyfe euerlaftynge/​and ioye with out ende. Amen Amen.52

Like Vives did for Mary, Duwes considered Elizabeth to be Princess of Wales, even though she was never specifically endowed with that title. This is ironic as Duwes was with Mary when she lived as a princess in Wales to garner both support for her father as king and her status as his only living heir. Likely, he previously called Mary “Princess of Wales” while serving her in person. It makes sense, then, that Duwes gave his printed book two dedications. He had to dedicate the book to Mary, who asked him to print his text in the first place, as she was the original recipient of these French lessons, and was the first Princess of Wales. But as King Henry VIII now had a new wife and (legitimate) daughter, Duwes had to include a second dedication and make clear that Mary commanded him to print his book, so that he would continue to be allowed to stay in the royal household and hopefully one day act as Elizabeth’s French tutor.53 Duwes died on April 12, 1535, so he was never able to fulfill that post, and instead Elizabeth and Edward were taught French by Jean Belmain. Elizabeth’s more famous childhood tutor, Roger Ascham, had a hand in the other textbook that was dedicated to Elizabeth. Ascham served as Elizabeth’s Greek and Latin tutor during her childhood, and he was responsible for getting Johann Sturm to dedicate an educational textbook to Elizabeth in 1550. Ascham and Sturm never met in person, but were frequent correspondents and fast friends; Ascham even named one of his children after Sturm, but the child died young.54 In a letter dated April 4, 1550, 51 Duwes, An introductory, Aiv.r. 52 Duwes, An introductory, Aiv.r. 53 Schutte, Mary I, 37–​40.

54 Lewis W. Spitz and Barbara Sher Tinsley, eds., Johann Sturm on Education (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995), 12.

19

Pre-accession Book Dedications

19

Ascham encouraged Sturm to write something for Elizabeth’s education, and a letter dated September 9, 1550 confirms that he did so.55 Johann Sturm dedicated his Libri duo Ioannis Sturmii de periodis unus to Elizabeth sometime in 1550.56 Benjamin Pohl and Leah Tether have recently shown that Sturm sent four manuscript copies of De periodis to England to be given to Elizabeth and her brother, Edward. Pohl and Tether convincingly identify extant vellum copies meant for Elizabeth in the British Library and for Edward in Trinity College, Cambridge.57 Sturm’s dedication to Elizabeth is four pages long and explains that he dedicated this book to Elizabeth because her learning was well known and she should invest herself in the words of good orators and writers as part of her education; it was a worthy feminine skill to read the words of good orators and learn from them.58 Sturm twice mentions Elizabeth’s “virginalis pudicitiae & amalilium morum” being an example of piety and understanding of pure doctrine.59 He also mentions that she would learn much from her tutor, Roger Ascham.60 In Sturm’s letter to Ascham from September 9, 1550, Sturm further explained to Ascham that it was both virtuous and noble for a young woman to undertake writing and composition and that based on the ways in which Ascham had described Elizabeth in previous letters to him, Elizabeth must have been wise for her sex and beautiful in both mind and body.61 Sturm further explicated his opinions on book dedications, noting that “it is absurd to address those who are ignorant of what is written,” so Ascham must ensure that Elizabeth understands his text.62 Finally, Sturm illuminated the role of the book dedication within the patronage system, writing that he sent copies for both Edward and Elizabeth hoping to achieve three-​fold patronage with his text: Ashcam, Edward, and Elizabeth.63 On

55 Spitz and Tinsley, Johann Sturm, 30. Sturm’s response to Ascham is reprinted on pages 189–​98. Spitz and Lewis also suggest that Elizabeth may have written a response back to Sturm thanking him for the dedication and book. Spitz and Tinsley, Johann Sturm, 31. Rogeri Aschami Angli, Regiae Olim Maistate a Latinis Episolis Familiarium Epistolarum. Libri III (Coloniae Allobrogum: Petrum Roverianum, 1611), 26–​27. 56 Johannes Sturm, Libri duo Ioannis Sturmii de periodis unus. Dionysii Halicarnassaei de collocatione verborum alter (Strasbourg, 1550). 57 Benjamin Pohl and Leah Tether, “Books Fit for a King: The Presentation Copies of Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi (London, British Library, Royal MS 8 B.  vii) and Johannes Sturm’s De periodis (Cambridge, Trinity College, II. 12.21 and London, British Library, C.24.e.5),” Electronic British Library Journal (2015), art. 7, 18–​19. On page 24, they suggest Cambridge, Trinity College II. 12.21 is Edward’s copy and British Library, C.24.e.5 is Elizabeth’s copy. 58 Sturm, De periodis, Aii.v.

59 Sturm, De periodis, Aiii.v.

60 Sturm, De periodis, Aiii.v.

61 Spitz and Tinsley, Johann Sturm, 189, 195. 62 Spitz and Tinsley, Johann Sturm, 196. 63 Spitz and Tinsley, Johann Sturm, 196.

20

20 Pre-accession Book Dedications November 18, 1550, further correspondence from Sturm notes that Elizabeth did in fact receive the gift and he heard that she was grateful for it.64 Johan Sturm and John Bale (as will be shown below) dedicated books to Elizabeth both because of her learning and her position as the king’s evangelical daughter. They do not seem to have known her personally, and Sturm only sent her something because of his friendship with Ascham. Sturm’s dedication to Elizabeth is similar to the dedications written by Vives and Duwes, in that all of them appeal to Mary and Elizabeth for being well-​educated and uncommon for their time, but each also intends to appeal to those in charge of each princess’s education so as to be rewarded for his efforts. Many other dedicators also mentioned that both princesses were educated, much more so than was typical for females in that time period.65 Thomas Paynell wrote to Mary “for who can denye but y youre grace thus well lerned” and that Mary was an example in whom men can see the benefit of virtuous education, as structured female education in letters was so uncommon.66 Henry Parker, Lord Morley, in his seven pre-​accession dedications to Mary frequently noted how she was able to read and write Latin by age twelve.67 John Bale wrote to Elizabeth, “blessed be those faythfull tuters & teachers whych by their most godly instruccyons have thus fastyened your tender youth into the ryght image of Christ.”68 And, Jean Belmain even told Elizabeth that it was difficult to find a good book to translate that Elizabeth had not already read.69 This actually explains why Mary and Elizabeth were given a total of twenty-​six book dedications to garner favor and patronage, when they just as easily could have been given jewels and clothes.70 Once, when Morley added a dedication to an old psalter that he gave to Mary, he noted that she would appreciate it more than jewels, which she could obtain on her own; it was known that these two princesses would both appreciate and understand texts that 64 Pohl and Tether, “Books Fit for a King,” 6.

65 Aysha Pollnitz suggests that Elizabeth’s education was much more similar to that of Mary than that of Edward, even though the princesses were taught by tutors of very different religious affiliation and Elizabeth’s superior education is often claimed as part of her Gloriana legend. Pollnitz, Princely Education, 241. 66 St. Bernard, A compendius and moche frutefulle treatyse of well liuynge, and contaynyng the hole sume and effect of al virtue, trans. by Thomas Paynell (London: Thomas Petyt, 1545), fol. 1v and fol. 3r. STC 1908. 67 BL, Royal MS 17 C XVI and BL, Royal MS 17 C XII.

68 Marguerite of Navarre, A godly medytacyon, of the christen sowle, concerninge a loue towardes God and hys Christe, compyled in frenche by lady Margarete quene of Nauerre, and aptely translated into Englysh by the ryght vertuouse lady Elyzabeth doughter to our late souerayne Kynge Henri the. viij, ed. John Bale (Wesel: Dirik van der Straten, 1548), Aviii.r. STC 17320. 69 Perry, Word of a Prince, 48.

70 Mary was known to be a lover of fine clothes and jewelry. Anna Whitelock, Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen (New York: Random House, 2009). Whitelock’s monograph includes images of Mary and accompanying captions. Whitelock notes that “she loved to dress extravagantly and knew the importance of displaying a striking image of royal majesty.” The pages that contain images are not numbered.

21

Pre-accession Book Dedications

21

were given to them.71 Here, Morley both flattered Mary for her learning, while referring to Proverbs 8:11, in which it is stated that wisdom is more precious than rubies, another common topos used by early modern translators of religious books. The remaining books dedicated to Princesses Mary and Elizabeth do not address religion nor were they meant to be textbooks. Rather, they are books on a range of subjects from men who sought patronage from the sisters or knew them from court. As mentioned earlier, William Buckley made a horary ring for Elizabeth, used with horary astrology in which the user asks questions and consults an astrological chart for answers. In the dedication to the treatise he wrote her to accompany the ring, Buckley explains why he made the ring and that the Virgin Mary has bestowed gifts and good fortune upon her. It is no accident that Elizabeth was interested in astrology; both Henry VII and Henry VIII consulted astrologers about their births of their children and Henry VII had a permanent court astrologer.72 This dedication from Buckley to Elizabeth shows that the knew her personally, while Mary received several general dedications from men whom it was clear did not know her personally, so they chose to write of her virtue, one of the most common themes found in book dedications to women. Other dedicators simply asked Mary to pass along their texts, assuming that she had influence over other ladies at court and maybe even beyond, just like her mother. Mary Roper Clark Basset, granddaughter of Thomas More, acknowledged that if Mary liked her text and passed it to others it would be more easily printable.73 While dedicators to Elizabeth did not outright ask, like Bassett, for Elizabeth to pass on their texts to a wider audience, they did attach Elizabeth’s name to their texts knowing that her name and status, like Mary’s would enhance their authority of their text, especially if it was a printed book meant to be sold commercially. Andrew Borde shows no personal knowledge of Mary and simply asks Mary to accept his goodwill because of her “bountiful goodness.”74 In 1542, while in Montpelier, Borde wrote The First Boke of the Introduction of Knowledge and with it offered Mary a single paragraph dedication. He presents his book “to the ryght honorable and gracyous lady Mary, doughter of our souerayne Lorde kyng Henry the viii.”75 He claims that he, “remembryng your bountyful goodness, pretended to make thys first booke named the Introduction of knowledge to your grace,”76 noting that he has dwelt in Scotland and spent many years traveling throughout different Christian lands, and going on to explain that the book contains information on “al maner of languages,” and “all maner of coynes 71 BL, Royal MS 2 D. XXVIII, fol. 1b.

72 Valerie Schutte, “The Politics of Dedicating Printed Books and Manuscripts to King Henry VII,” Journal of the Early Book Society 19 (2016): 153–​54. 73 BL, Harley MS 1860. The dedication appears on fols. 1r to 8v.

74 Andrew Borde, The First Boke of the Introduction of Knowledge (London: William Copland, 1555), Aiv. STC 3383. 75 Borde, Knowledge, A.i.v. The dedication is position on A.i.v both editions. 76 Borde, Knowledge, A.i.v.

22

22 Pre-accession Book Dedications of mony that whych is currant in every province or region”; he concludes by “trustyng that your grace will accept my good wyll and dylygent labour in Chryste.”77 This dedication is typically laudatory of Princess Mary, using traditional language and rhetoric commonly found in book dedications. Borde also mentions Henry VIII, Mary’s father, which was a typical strategy used in book dedications to Henry’s children, so as to elicit patronage from both child and parent.78 Borde’s dedication to Mary, especially as it was very general, simply showed loyalty to the royal family, not Mary personally. It was common practice for authors and translators to dedicate their books and manuscripts to a royal patron hoping for a reward or patronage in return. It was equally as common for dedicators to add a dedication in the hope that it would serve as an endorsement for the book or at least increase the book’s authority on a subject. The following chapter turns to Mary’s own pre-​accession translations, none of which were accompanied by a dedication, because they were meant for a courtly audience, not one specific patron.

77 Borde, Knowledge, A.i.v. 78 Schutte, Mary I, 47–​48. Schutte, “Perceptions of Princesses,” 63–​83.

23

Chapter 2

MARY’S PRE-​ACCESSION TRANSLATIONS

While Elizabeth’s juvenile translations have been the subject of much scholarship, those by Mary have not received the same attention. There are two extant translations credited to Mary before she became queen, and neither exists in her own handwriting. One, she undertook as an eleven-​year-​old princess, the same age as Elizabeth when she offered her first translation to Katherine Parr. The other, she translated sometime between 1545 and 1547, the time in which Elizabeth gave Henry VIII and Katherine Parr her New Year’s gift translations. What makes these translations noteworthy, is that neither had an accompanying dedication. Mary wrote these translations as part of her schooling or at the behest of her stepmother. She did not include a dedication for either because they simply were not necessary to convey a political message. However, as will be seen, both ended up serving a political purpose, quite possibly without Mary’s knowledge or consent.

Mary’s Translation of St. Thomas Aquinas

In the British Library there is held a medieval illuminated Book of Hours previously owned by Mary Wotton, Lady Guildford, a lady-​in-​waiting to Catherine of Aragon, containing marginalia and inscriptions in at least fifteen different hands.1 Among the fifteen hands, there are signatures by Henry VII, Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Princess Mary. On the final folios of the manuscript, there is a prayer titled “The prayer of Sainte Thomas of Aquine translatyd oute of latin vnto Englysshe by y moste exselent Princesse Mary doughter to the moste hygh and myghty Prynce and Prynces kyng henry the. viii and Quene Kateryn hys wyfe In the yere of oure lorde god y ccccc.xxvii: And the xi. yere of here age.”2 The prayer spans four pages. Aysha Pollnitz suggests that Mary “probably worked from a medieval Latin rendering, printed in a 1514 Salisbury Book of Hours.”3

1 British Library, Additional MS 17012.

2 BL, Additional MS 17012, fols. 192v‒194r. The prayer is Concede mihi, misericors Deus. The prayer has been reprinted in Alexandra Barratt, ed., Women’s Writing in Middle English, 2nd ed. (Harlow: Longman, 2010), 332–​33. Also reprinted in Frederic Madden, Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, Daughter of King Henry the Eighth, Afterwards Queen Mary: With a Memoir of the Princess, and Notes (London: William Pickering, 1831), Appendix II, clxxiii‒clxxiv. 3 Aysha Pollnitz, “Christian Women or Sovereign Queens? The Schooling of Mary and Elizabeth,” in Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, ed. Alice Hunt and Anna Whitelock (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 132.

24

24 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations Whether she intended or not, Mary’s translation represented her lineage as the daughter and granddaughter of kings and reinforced her legitimacy as Henry’s daughter, as her translation appears alongside the signatures of her royal relatives.4 Due to its timing in 1527, the year in which Henry VIII began his quest for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, it became politically significant, so much so that Mary’s title as princess as well as Catherine’s name and title were later crossed out so as not to appear supportive of them and therefore subversive to Henry VIII.5 This translation has barely received scholarly attention and is often dismissed by Mary’s biographers as a part of her educational training.6 Yet, Mary’s age at the time of her translation is mentioned in the title so as to emphasize her abilities as a young, royal woman, a strategy later used by John Bale for Elizabeth. Unlike for Elizabeth, this translation is generally not regarded as evidence of Mary’s great scholarly achievements at eleven years old, although by that age she was able to converse in four languages. Further evidence of Mary’s linguistic abilities occurred a banquet held at Greenwich on April 23, 1527, in honor of Mary’s recent betrothal to Henry, Duke of Orleans. Henry VIII asked his guests to speak to Mary in French, Italian, or Latin, and she responded in all three languages.7 On the bottom of folio 192v, there is a brief inscription in Mary’s hand, “I haue sed that nobody lyuethe he shulde doo but he that foloueth vertu and I rekenyng you to be on of them I pray you to remembre me yn your deuocyons … Mary.”8 Previously Mary’s inscription has been misidentified as a dedication, but as it does not follow the typical rhetorical structure, nor does it introduce the translation, it should be regarded as a lyric or inscription instead.9 It cannot even be identified if it was written before or after her inscribed translation. Her own inscription goes so far as to echo an inscription written by Elizabeth of York on folio 21r, “Madam I pray you forget … me to pray to god 4 Rosalind Smith, “Paratextual Economies in Tudor Women’s Translations: Margaret More Roper, Mary Roper Basset and Mary Tudor,” in Trust and Proof: Translators in Renaissance Print Culture, ed. Andrea Rizzi, 185–​208 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 207.

5 Jaime Goodrich, “Mary Tudor, Lord Morley, and St. Thomas Aquinas: The Politics of Pious Translation at the Henrician Court,” ANQ 24, nos. 1–​2 (2011), 11, 13, 15. Goodrich seems to overstate her evidence here, but she does acknowledge that this translated prayer may have become politicized without that being Mary’s intention when she undertook the translation. Goodrich, “Mary Tudor,” 14. The exact dating of the translation is unknown. See also, Eamon Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and their Prayers, 1240–​1570 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 156–​58. Smith also calls the translation “politically charged.” Smith, “Paratextual Economies,” 207.

6 David Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989), 42. Whitelock, Mary Tudor, 24. Edwards, Mary I, 229–​30. For scholarly treatment of Mary’s translation, there is one journal article and one book chapter: Goodrich, “Mary Tudor,” and Smith, “Paratextual Economies.”

7 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer, James Gairdner, and R. H. Brodie, 23 volumes in 38 (London, 1862–​1932), 4, entry 3105. British Library, Additional MS 12192. Hereafter cited as Letters and Papers. 8 British Library, Additional 17012, 192v. 9 Goodrich, “Mary Tudor,” 14.

25

Mary’s Pre-accession Translations

25

that I may haue part of your prayers,” in that both women asked to be remembered in the recipient’s prayers.10 Yet, rather than dedications, both the inscriptions by Mary and Elizabeth of York are friendly greetings rather than supplications. It is also obvious that they were not written as part of a gift, but in a book that was used for communal devotion and prayer, as the fifteen different handwritings demonstrate the book’s circulation at court.11 Mary’s inscription could perhaps even be considered as an acknowledgement or thank you—​reminiscent of a book signing by an author—​that she signed under her prayer to an admirer. Mary’s translation was not given as a gift with a specific intended recipient, or at least this one extant version of her translation was not. This is significant because it means that Mary commenced the translation for her own edification, and possibly to demonstrate her skills, but not because she needed to present her father or mother with justification for her education or as a reminder of her royal status. Like Elizabeth, this translation may have been done at the instigation of one of her tutors, but it also could have been something she undertook as a pious activity. What is most interesting about this translation is that during Mary’s eleventh year, she resided in Wales as head of her own household and representative of her father’s government.12 Sometime after her departure for Wales in August 1525, Catherine of Aragon wrote to her daughter, As for your writing in Lattine I am glad that ye shall change frome me to Maister Federston, for that shall doo you moche good, to lerne by him to write right. But yet some tymes I wold be glad when ye doo write to Maister Federston of your owne enditing when he hathe rede it that I may se it. For it shalbe a grete comfort to me to see You kepe your Latten and fayer writing and all.13

Mary’s translation of Aquinas, undertaken in Wales under the tutelage of Master Fetherston, very well could have been an example of Mary’s Latin that Fetherston sent back to Catherine of Aragon so that she could monitor her daughter’s progress as well as see how Mary was developing her own piety. Linda Porter is the only scholar to have previously made the connection that Mary completed this translation while in Wales, yet she too argues that it was a school exercise done “to prove to her mother that the Latin was going well.”14 While Porter uses this to be dismissive, it is quite possible that Mary 10 British Library, Additional 17012, fol. 21r. For a discussion of marginal conversations, see Rosalind Smith, “Paratextual Marginalia, Early Modern Women, and Collaboration,” in Gender, Authorship, and Early Modern Women’s Collaboration, ed. Patricia Pender, 175–​ 200 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). 11 Smith, “Paratextual Economies,” 203.

12 Linda Porter, Mary Tudor: The First Queen (London: Portrait, 2007), 42.

13 British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. F xiii, fol. 72. Henry Ellis, Original Letters, Illustrative of English History, 1st ser., vol. 2 (London: Harding, Triphook, and Lepard, 1825), 19–​20. Reprinted in Garrett Mattingly, Catherine of Aragon (New York: Little, Brown, 1941), 230–​31. 14 Porter, Mary Tudor, 42.

26

26 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations or Fetherston sent this translation back to Catherine of Aragon who then circulated it at court because she was proud of her daughter’s abilities. It is not known exactly how or in how many copies Mary’s translation circulated at court, but Henry Parker, Lord Morley, in his dedication to Mary accompanying his own translation of St. Thomas Aquinas specifically mentions it. Morley writes: I do well remember that skante ye were cum to xij yeres of age, but that ye were so rype in the Laten tonge, that rathe dothe happen to the women sex, that youer Grace not only coulde perfectly rede, wright and constrewe Laten, but fathermore translate eny harde thinge of the Latin in to ouer Inglysshe tonge. And amonge all other youer most vertuus ocupacions I haue sene one prayer translatyd of youer doynge of Sayncte Thomas Alquyne that, I do ensuer youer Grace, is so well done, so neare to the Laten that when I loke vppon yt, as I haue one of the exemplar of yt, I haue not only meruell at the doinge of yt, but farther, for the well doynge, set yt as well in my boke or bokes as also in my pore wyfes, youer humble beadwoman, and my children, to the entent to gyue them ocasion to remember to praye for youer Grace.15

Here, Morley praises Mary’s Latin skills for both her reading and translating, speaking from what seems to be personal knowledge of Mary. He then explains that he has access to an exemplar of Mary’s translation, showing that it did indeed exist in multiple copies. Yet it does not appear as though he has the original in her hand, or he likely would have been specific about it as his source, though it does not rule out she personally made multiple copies. Finally, Morley also participated in the translation’s further circulation by writing it (or perhaps having his wife and children copy it as was done in the Book of Hours) into their own prayer books, not only because it was an accurate translation but because it was a reminder of Mary. The year of Morley’s dedication to Mary is unknown, like many of his dedications to her. All that is known is that Morley gave Mary his translation of Aquinas and the accompanying dedication as a New Year’s gift sometime between 1537 and 1547.16 As noted by Jaime Goodrich, this means that Mary’s translation circulated court in 1527, when she first wrote it, and found new life between 1537 and 1547, when Morley mentioned his own ownership of a copy and how he passed it around his family.17 By that time it most certainly had taken on a political meaning, as Morley had to address Mary as lady, not a princess, as was her status when she completed her translation. While the placement of Mary’s extant prayer in the Book of Hours alongside the signatures and inscriptions of her royal parents and grandparents cemented her lineage 15 British Library, Royal MS 17 C XVI, fols. 1b‒3a. Reprinted in Herbert G. Wright, ed., Forty-​six Lives: Translated from Boccaccio’s De Claris Mulieribus by Henry Parker, Lord Morley (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), 172‒73. 16 Carley, “The Writings of Henry Parker,” 34.

17 Goodrich, “Mary Tudor,” 16. This prayer was not the only prayer by Mary that was circulated among a family. The Bedingfeld family preserved a prayer allegedly said daily by Queen Mary in what is now known as the Sydenham Prayer Book. The Sydenham Prayer Book is currently held in a private collection at Oxburgh Hall. See Catholic Record Society, Miscellanea, vol. 6 (1909), 23–​27.

27

Mary’s Pre-accession Translations

27

as Henry VIII’s heir, it is impossible to know in how many other copies it existed and how it was presented in those copies. Therefore, in this one extant version it is possible to see Mary’s translation as a proclamation of her own legitimacy, yet this one copy of her translation cannot be read as representative of the translation as a whole. It can only be said with hindsight that Mary would have needed to defend her legitimacy, and even if she did, when she translated this prayer, it was not to the same level as Elizabeth because it is not in Mary’s own hand and it was not given to her father to remind him of her position.

Mary’s Translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrase on the Gospel of John

Sometime between 1545 and 1547, when Elizabeth was actively presenting Katherine Parr and Henry VIII with New Year’s translations, Mary engaged in a quite high-​profile, widely circulated translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrase on the Gospel of John. In the fall of 1545, Katherine Parr began organizing a large-​scale English translation project to translate Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament into English.18 For the Gospel of John, Katherine enlisted the help of her eldest step-​daughter, who agreed to undertake the translation, but did not finish it due to illness. As a result, Katherine sent her own chaplain, Francis Mallet, to Mary to complete the translation. The first printing of the English volume of Paraphrases was published on January 31, 1548, only a few months before John Bale printed Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass of the Sinful Soul. Just as Mary’s translation of Aquinas has barely been treated in modern scholarship, scholars also tend to minimize the importance of her translation and contribution to Paraphrases because of her Catholicism.19 David Loades describes Mary’s scholarly activities as “passive,” claiming there is no evidence of her “learned accomplishments,” unlike the four translations completed by Elizabeth.20 Susan James suggests that Katherine asked Mary to be part of the project both to improve her Latin and sway her from her conservative leanings, thus removing any agency from Mary as a scholar.21 John N. King dismisses Mary’s participation in a single sentence: “Princess Mary never completed the translation of the paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John requested by Catherine for this work, possibly out of disagreement with her stepmother’s Reformist 18 The first tome or volume of the Paraphrases of Erasmus upon the newe testament (London: Edward Whitchurch, January 31, 1548). STC 2854. It was printed again in 1551–​52. See E.  J. Devereux, “Publication of the English Paraphrases of Erasmus,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1969):  348–​67. E.  J. Devereux, Renaissance English Translations of Erasmus: A Bibliography to 1700 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983). Gregory D. Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 2–​26. 19 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 124.

20 David Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 118. 21 See also James, Catherine Parr, 206.

28

28 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations sympathies.”22 Likewise, Anne Lake Prescott questions whether Mary did not complete the translation because she was ill or because of religious scruples against a reformed project.23 James McConica at least credits Mary with having “considerable scholarly abilities,” but notes that the success of the Erasmus project was due to “the genius of Henry’s last Queen for producing an atmosphere of harmony.”24 This systematic denial of Mary’s intellectual and scholarly abilities by scholars in favor of the achievements of Elizabeth speaks to larger trends of neglect, whiggism, and providentiality, in which scholars of Tudor England have wanted to show England as a great Protestant nation with a small blip of Mary’s unimportant Catholic reign. Only in the last decade or so has there been any serious attempt to challenge this traditional narrative. Aysha Pollnitz, the most recent scholar to address Mary’s participation in the Erasmus project, argues that Mary’s involvement needs to be put into context of both aristocratic female piety and with the religious policy of Henry VIII, under whose reign the project was begun, not that of Edward. Paraphrases was printed in 1548, yet Udall’s dedication for the Gospel of Luke is dated September 30, 1545, meaning that the project was already underway by autumn 1545. This dating is crucial because this means that the project was begun under Henry VIII and not Edward, so it did not start with the reformed associations it later took on under Edward. This also shows that Mary was a “consenting member” of Henry VIII’s church, which likely influenced her later decisions as queen to reimplement Catholicism without the influence of the papacy.25 Mary, herself, was aware of Erasmus’ Paraphrases as early as 1523, when Juan Luis Vives recommend that she read them as part of the curriculum he laid out for her in de Ratione Studii Puerilis. Along with Thomas More’s Utopia, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Plato, and Ambrose, Vives suggested Mary read “Erasmi institutio principis, Enchiridion, Paraprhases, & alia eius permulta pietati vtilia.”26 So Katherine’s intentions to translate Erasmus might have been reform-​minded, yet the project still fit in with Mary’s conservatism.27 She likely agreed to undertake the translation in the first place because she found a comfort in them from her childhood knowing that Vives specifically told her mother she should read them. Translating was also an acceptable format for females to engage with religious texts. Given Mary’s relationship with Katherine Parr, her own tradition of reading and translating, and the possibility that it would portray her as a 22 John N.  King, “Patronage and Piety:  The Influence of Catherine Parr,” in Silent But for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works, ed. Margaret P. Hannay (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1985), 48. 23 Anne Lake Prescott, ed., The Early Modern Englishwoman: A Facsimile Library of Essential Works, 1st ser., Printed Writings, 1500–​1540: pt. 1, vol. 5, Elizabeth and Mary Tudor, xii. 24 McConica, English Humanists, 231. 25 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 124–​25.

26 Vives, Satellitium sive Symbola, L5v. It was previously printed in 1524, but the quotation comes from the 1530 edition. 27 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 75. For a discussion of how Mary translated the Gospel conservatively, see Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 83–​87.

29

Mary’s Pre-accession Translations

29

loyal member of Henry’s church, it is not surprising that Mary agreed to translate the Gospel of John.28 Henry VIII even owned a copy of the 1524 edition of Erasmus’ Paraphrases that he annotated, so he must have thought it was an acceptable text both for his daughter to read and later to be printed in the vernacular during his reign.29 It also did not hurt that Erasmus dedicated his commentary on Luke to Henry either. In this light, Pollnitz suggests that Paraphrases should not be seen as a reformed project, but part of Henry VIII’s platform to advance of ideas of verbem Dei.30 Katherine wrote to Mary regarding her progress with the translation of John in a letter dated September 20 either 1545 or 1547. The existing letter was actually written in italic script by Elizabeth, meaning that Katherine and Elizabeth must have been together at the time and that Elizabeth was aware of the translation project, yet gives no indication that she was part of it.31 This perhaps speaks to the friendship of Katherine and Mary versus the more mother-​daughter relationship that Katherine had with Elizabeth. It also bolsters the argument of this monograph that Elizabeth had lesser standing than Mary and may not have been asked to participate in a large-​scale New Testament translation project because she did not have the reputation that Mary did. In the letter, Katherine first enquires after Mary’s health and tells her that she has sent this specific, unnamed messenger both to check on her health and because he is musically gifted and she knows how much Mary loves music. Katherine has been meaning to visit in person, but cannot at this time, so she hopes that Mary will come visit her instead (and maybe Elizabeth since they seem to be together). As for Mary’s translation, Katherine (via Elizabeth) writes: Since, however, as I have heard, the last touch has now been put by Mallet on Erasmus’s work On John (which he saw through translation), and nothing else now remains except some due attention and care to be applied in correcting it, I pray you to send to me this very fine and very useful work, now emended by Mallet or someone of yours, that it may be given to the press in its time.32

Here, it is obvious that Katherine commissioned her translation of John and was anxious that it be collected so that it could be typeset for the final English volume. That is actually what makes the dating of the letter ambiguous to either 1545 or 1547. Katherine was certainly involved with the project by September 1545, yet her asking for Mary’s completed translation that early suggests that Katherine had been working on it for 28 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 132.

29 James Carley, ed., The Libraries of King Henry VIII (London: British Library, 2000), 90, entry 407. 30 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 127.

31 This was not uncommon for Katherine to write a letter with one of her step-​children. Katherine and Mary together wrote a courtesy letter on the same sheet of paper to the Countess of Hertford. Hatfield House, Cecil MS 147, fol. 6. Dated June 3, 1544. 32 British Library, Cotton MS Vespasian, F.III, art. 35, fol. 37r. The original letter is in Latin. Here, I am citing the English translation by Janel Mueller in Katherine Parr, Complete Works & Correspondence (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2011), 86–​88. Hereafter cited as Complete Works.

30

30 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations some time. The year 1547 is also plausible because the volume was not published until January 1548, meaning that Katherine could have been writing to implore her to give it to the press so that it could make the final typesetting and printing without delaying the entire project. Katherine continues: And further, that you signify whether you wish it to go out most happily into the light under your name, or whether rather by an unknown author. To which work really, in my opinion, you will be seen to do an injury, if you refuse to the book to be transmitted to posterity on the authority of your name: for the most accurate translating of which you have undertaken so many labor for the highest good of the commonwealth; and more than these (as is well enough known) you would have undertaken, if the health of your body had permitted. Since no one does not know the amount of sweat that you have laboriously put into this work, I do not see why you should reject the praise that all confer on your deservedly. However, I leave this whole matter to your prudence, so that whatever position you wish to take, I will esteem it most greatly to be approved.

These sentences highlight Mary’s name and authority as related to print. With books dedicated to Princess Mary, as discussed in Chapter 1 above, Mary’s name was often invoked in printed book dedications to give a text authority for being associated with the princess. The same would be true for Mary’s own printed translation. Approving it to be published under her name would give the individual translation authority, and would also bolster the authority of the translation project as a whole. Not only was Mary learned and pious, as her translation would demonstrate, but she undertook the translation for the good of spreading vernacular Scripture throughout the commonwealth. Katherine pleads with Mary to allow her to publish the translation with her name, going so far as to appeal to Mary that if she does not use her name no one will be able to praise her and her effort (undoubtedly which will be attributed to a male translator instead). Katherine leaves the matter to Mary to choose, but it does appear as though the two women have had this conversation before. Katherine seems well aware that Mary’s name adds value and authority. If the letter is from 1547, then Mary was well aware that her name would be adding authority to a reformed project, which is perhaps why she was hedging adding her name to her project. Ultimately, it is unclear what Mary chose and her name is only mentioned within the dedication that Nicholas Udall wrote to Katherine Parr to accompany the Gospel of John. In Paraphrases, each translated book had an accompanying dedication; some were to Katherine Parr, project organizer, and some were to Edward, who was king by the time the project went to press. Katherine received a dedication by Nicholas Udall prefacing his translation of the Paraphrase Upon the Gospel of Luke, dated September 30, 1545; a dedication by Thomas Caius before his translation of the Paraphrase Upon the Gospel of Mark, dated September 30, 1545; another dedication by Udall prefacing the entire first volume of Paraphrases, dated January 31, 1548; and a third dedication by Udall accompanying Mary’s translation of the Paraphrase on the Gospel of John, dated January 31, 1548. In his dedication on the Gospel of John, Udall begins by noting how at that time in England there were many noble women currently engaging in translating and writing

31

Mary’s Pre-accession Translations

31

about holy Scripture, far outnumbering the great learned women on antiquity. Udall goes on to list a few of the exceptional women who were educated and were able to pass their knowledge on to their children. But he finds England to currently be in a “blissefull time of knowelage,” in which many women, several of whom are young virgins, are able to converse about and translate Scripture.33 He even marvels how “Quenes and Ladies of moste high estate and progenie” undertake literary activities. Here he is most certainly referring to Katherine’s own works, and to Mary as a woman of high estate rather than calling her a princess, though on the next page he slips and uses the phrase “Quenes and Princesses.”34 After his abstract thoughts on the value of women engaging in Scriptural activities, he directly addresses Katherine and praises her for “causyng these paraphrases of the moste famous clerke and moste godly writer Erasmus of Rotterdam to bee translated into oure vulgare language.”35 He then spends the remainder of his dedication discussing Mary, “moste derely beloued systur to the kyng,” who Katherine specifically requested to translate this gospel.36 Udall describes Mary as: O how greatly maye we all glory in suche a peerless floure of virginitee as her Grace is: who in the middes of Courtly delices, and emiddes the enticementes of worldly vanitees, hathe by her owne choice and eleccion so virtuously, and so fruictefully passed her tendre youth, that to the publique comforte and gladfull reioicyng whiche at her byrth she brought to all Englande: she doeth nowe also conferre vnto thesame the vnestimable benefite of ferthering bothe vs and our posteritee in the knowleage of Goddes worde, and to the more clere vnderstandyng of Christes gospell.37

What is most interesting about this passage in Udall’s dedication is how he praises Katherine for asking Mary to undertake this translation, but then does not credit Katherine any further for Mary’s virtue or piety. He does not acknowledge Katherine as having influence over Mary, in the way that modern scholars often credit Katherine for having great influence over both of her step-​daughters.38 Rather, Udall, remarks of Mary’s reputation for being godly and virginal as a credit to England (perhaps making an underhanded comment upon her being one month shy of thirty-​two years old and not yet married); Udall can think of nothing else that would be more beneficial to England that the promotion of God’s words. Moreover, he states that Mary undertook this translation for the benefit of the commonwealth and its people. This drives home the point that Elizabeth had present her translations to balance her own personal position, while Mary translated for the good of spreading vernacular Scripture to her 33 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiv. Quotations come from STC 2854.5 on Early English Books Online. 34 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiv, AAaiir. 35 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiir. 36 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiir. 37 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiir.

38 Valerie Schutte, “Under the Influence:  The Impact of Queenly Book Dedications on Princess Mary,” in The Birth of a Queen: Essays on the Quincentenary of Mary I, ed. Sarah Duncan and Valerie Schutte (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 42–​43.

32

32 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations people. Clearly these were two very different motivations and speak to the very different situations of Mary and Elizabeth in the mid-​1540s. However, Udall does mention that at some point during the translation Mary became sick and weak and that Francis Mallet finished the translation so that if the king commanded Paraphrases to be printed, that she would not hinder its publication. The king so referenced here is Henry VIII, king at the time in which Katherine began her project, but who died before its completion. Ultimately, Edward did command its printing and for it to be placed in every parish in England.39 In injunctions issued the last day of July 1547, Edward ordered: within one twelfe monethes, next after the saied visitacion, the Paraphrasis of Erasmus also in englishe vpon the Gospelles, + the same sette vp in some conuenient place, within the sayed Churche, that they haue cure of, wheras their parishioners may moste commodiously resorte vnto the same, + reade the same.40

Both the English Bible and Paraphrases were placed in at 162 parishes between 1548 and 1666, with some removed during Mary’s reign, only to be returned by Elizabethan injunctions of 1559.41 Even though Mary was a known translator of the Gospel of John, the entire project was seen by some as too evangelical when she became queen. Yet, Paraphrases “including Mary’s portion—​were thus vital to the Edwardian Reformation,” and presented the royal family—​Edward, Katherine Parr, and Mary—​as endorsing reform.42 Moreover, it meant that Mary’s translation remained visible in parishes for the rest of the sixteenth century. To conclude his praise of Mary, Udall writes a series of questions, asking to whom Mary would not be an inspiration and encouraging other men to translate for the good of England. She was a virtuous lady and a daughter and sister of kings, who used her talents for the good of her country. For Udall, maie not this moost earnest zele of a princesse of suche highe estate, bee an effetuall provuocacion + encouragyng to haue good munde and wyll to reade, heare, and embrace this deuout and catholike Paraphrase so plainly and sensibly translated, and so graciously by her offreed, and (as ye would sate) put in al lfolkes handes to bee made familiar vnto them?43

Explicitly, now, Udall refers to Mary as princess, even though she could not use the title at the time. Yet, she was Edward’s heir, and just as her name gave this translation 39 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 123. Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 76.

40 Iniunccions geuen by the moste excellent prince, Edward the sixte by the grace of God, kyng of England, Fraunce, and Irelande: defendor of the faythe, and in earthe vnder Christ, of the churche of Englande and of Ireland the supreme hedde: to all and singuler his louyng subiectes, aswell of the clergie, as of the laietie (London: Richard Grafton, 1547), A4v‒B1r. STC 10089. 41 Pollnitz, “Religion,” 123n4. There is not agreement on whether or not Mary had Paraphrases removed upon her accession See Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 68, 87n69. 42 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 76. 43 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiiv.

33

Mary’s Pre-accession Translations

33

authority, Udall used the title of princess to give Mary authority and her rightful place as next in line to the throne at the time of this book’s publication. Mary’s name and title needed to be included because it showed that both a former queen and potentially the future queen endorsed its publication. While Udall called the translation “catholike,” this is most likely in the sense of catholic as universal, rather than Roman Catholic, as a history of debate around Erasmus’ own faith shows. To conclude his dedication, Udall praises both women together for their work on this project, “then your hignesse in procuryng these translacions, and the said Ladie Maries grace on her partie also haue ment it: I shall sembleablye be a continuall peticioner to his diuine maiestee, long yeres to preserue both your estates.”44 For Katherine, God should preserve her for putting this project together, while for Mary God should watch over her because of her activities done for public good. Finally, with this translation and publication, both women should attain perpetual fame and an afterlife in heaven. Interestingly, this dedication was not given to Mary, even though Udall had already written two other dedications to Katherine Parr in this same volume and spent the majority of his time within this dedication praising Mary and her skills. Why not directly give the dedication to Mary and say these words to her, not through Katherine? Perhaps Mary did not give Katherine permission to print the translation with her name, but Udall, as editor of the volume, chose to acknowledge Mary anyway. This dedication is dated January 31, 1548, the day of publication according to the colophon, so Udall may have mentioned Mary without anyone’s permission or even at Katherine’s request so that Mary did survive posterity as the translator of the gospel. No matter if Mary gave her permission or not, again, this translation was not given as a gift to a family member, but was included in a high-​ profile printed project, in which Mary was included because of her status as Henry VIII’s eldest daughter.

A Reflection on Elizabeth

Mary undertook her translation of the Gospel of John in 1545, approximately the same time in which Elizabeth began giving her translations to Katherine Parr. Yet, Elizabeth’s New Year’s gift for January 1545 was not the first time Katherine Parr was made aware of Elizabeth’s foreign language skills. There is an extant letter entirely in Italian from Elizabeth to Katherine dated July 31, 1544, nearly half a year before Elizabeth gave Katherine her first dedicated manuscript.45 The letter was written during Katherine’s regency, when Henry was on military campaign in France, and has been highly cited 44 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiiv.

45 British Library, MS Cotton Otho C.X., fol. 235r. An English translation has been printed in both Elizabeth I, Elizabeth I: Collected Works, ed. Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 5–​6 (hereafter cited as Collected Works) and Complete Works, 82. For the Italian original, see Elizabeth I, Elizabeth I: Autograph Compositions and Foreign Language Originals, ed. Janel Mueller and Leah S. Marcus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 5–​6. Hereafter cited as ACFLO. The original held in the British Library was damaged by a fire

34

34 Mary’s Pre-accession Translations for Elizabeth’s language of having been in “exile” from court. However, the editors of Elizabeth’s collected works suggest that Elizabeth was not banished from court, but simply separate from Katherine who was presiding over her regency at Hampton Court Palace while Elizabeth was living at St. James.46 For my purposes, this letter is important for two reasons. The first is that it shows that Katherine was familiar with Elizabeth’s foreign language skills as early as July 1544, which were reinforced with Elizabeth’s New Year’s gift five months later, yet there is no evidence that Katherine asked Elizabeth to participate in the Erasmus New Testament translation project. This could have been because Elizabeth was only eleven at the time and perhaps Katherine was not convinced Elizabeth could translate one of Erasmus’ paraphrases without substantial help from her tutors, but may also speak to Elizabeth’s lesser standing at court. Having Elizabeth translate one of the paraphrases simply would not have given added value to the translation project in the same way that Mary’s participation did. This goes into the second reason this letter is important to this study, which is Elizabeth’s language of supplication. No matter if Elizabeth was actually banished (which is unlikely) or simply living apart from Katherine at the time, Elizabeth outright asks for Katherine to intercede on her behalf with her father, “heretofore I have not dared write to him, for which at present I humbly entreat your most excellent highness that in writing to his majesty you will deign to recommend me to him.”47 It is evident that Elizabeth understood that being friendly, and going so far as to show Katherine “daughterly love,” was the best way to attempt to remain in the good graces of her father, and thereby not be demoted, or perhaps even exiled, from court.48 Elizabeth needed Katherine to speak on her behalf and supplicated herself to Katherine both in this letter and later that year in her dedication.

in Sir Robert Cotton’s library in 1742. A transcript copy of the entire Italian original is held in the Bodleian Library, MS Smith 68, art. 49. 46 Collected Works, 5n2. 47 Collected Works, 5–​6. 48 Collected Works, 5.

35

Chapter 3

ELIZABETH’S PRE-​ACCESSION TRANSLATIONS

In the introduction

of his biography of Princess Elizabeth, David Starkey claims that she received “the most advanced curriculum of the day. But it was her lessons in the school of life that mattered more.”1 This chapter examines the four book dedications written by Elizabeth as an intersection of both of those classrooms. They were direct evidence of her humanist, bookish education, yet showed a savvy, young girl’s understanding of the royal court. As a princess she undertook at least four translations of religious texts that she handwrote and dedicated to various family members as New Year’s gifts. Unsurprisingly, all four translations were evangelical, as all of her childhood tutors were evangelical.2 This chapter will not address the translations themselves, as they have already been thoroughly studied, or Elizabeth’s selection of texts in context of the religious mood at court, but instead will focus on the dedications written by Elizabeth and how they fit into the early modern tradition of printed book and manuscript dedications, as discussed in the first chapter.3 While the translations are evidence of Elizabeth’s linguistic ability, the dedications give insight into Elizabeth’s relationships with her relatives and her position at court as a demoted princess.4 1 Starkey, Elizabeth, ix. 2 Brenda M. Hosington, “ ‘How we ovght to knowe God’: Princess Elizabeth’s Presentation of her Calvin translation to Katherine Parr,” in Booldly boy meekly: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Translation in the Middle Ages in Honour of Roger Ellis, ed. Catherine Batt and René Tixier (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 501–​2.

3 Jonathan Gibson, “Katherine Parr, Princess Elizabeth, and the Crucified Christ,” in Early Tudor Women Writers, Ashgate Critical Essays on Women Writers in England, 1550–​1700, vol. 1, ed Elaine V. Beilin, 207–​23 (Surrey: Ashgate, 2009); Anne Lake Prescott, “The Pearl of the Valois and Elizabeth I: Marguerite de Navarre’s Miroir and Tudor England,” in Silent But for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works, ed. Margaret P.  Hannay, 61–​76 (Kent:  Kent State University Press, 1985); Susan Snyder, “Guilty Sisters:  Marguerite de Navarre, Elizabeth of England, and the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse,” Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997): 443–​58; Marc Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993); Lisa M. Klein, “Your Humble Handmaid: Elizabethan Gifts of Needlework,” Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997): 459–​93; Perry, Word of a Prince, 16–​22, 27–​30, 48–​50; Starkey, Elizabeth, 47–​49; Margaret H. Swain, “A New Year’s Gift from the Princess Elizabeth,” The Connoisseur (August 1973): 258–​66; Pollnitz, Princely Education, 201, 244–​50; Frances Teague, “Princess Elizabeth’s hand in The Glass of the Sinful Soul,” in Writings by early modern women, vol. 9, English Manuscript Studies, 1100–​1700, ed. Peter Beal and Margaret Ezell (London: 2000), 33–​48; Roger Ellis, “The Juvenile Translations of Elizabeth Tudor,” Translation and Literature 18, no. 2 (Autumn 2009): 157–​80. 4 For a detailed discussion of Elizabeth’s use of Latin in letters, dedications, and translations, see Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth,” 11–​36. Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 90.

36

36 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

1545 Dedication to Katherine Parr At eleven years old, for New Year’s 1545, Elizabeth translated from French into English Marguerite de Navarre’s Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse (The Glass of the Sinful Soul).5 It is not clear where Elizabeth first encountered Marguerite of Navarre’s text. Possibilities include a copy owned by her mother that was given to Anne by Marguerite during her time at the French court; a copy given to her by Katherine Parr; or a copy given to her by her French tutor, Jean Belmain. Starkey points out that 1544 was a very good year for Elizabeth: she was put in the succession, rehabilitated at court, The Family of Henry VIII is the first surviving painting of her, and her first extant letter dates to that year.6 In August 1544, Lord Russell wrote to Sir William Paget that the queen and all three children were together at Hampton Court Palace.7 Therefore, it is not surprising that Elizabeth chose that as her first year to offer her stepmother a dedicated translation as a New Year’s gift; it served as the physical embodiment of her education combined with her new status as legal (even if bastardized) heir. Elizabeth’s English title was obviously meant to be a reminder of “The Mirror of Gold for the Sinful Soul,” translated by Lady Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth’s paternal great-​ grandmother.8 Margaret Swain describes the book as “bound in canvas, embroidered in blue and silver silk, decorated on the upper and lower covers with an interlace design in silver and gilt thread, with a raised embroidered heartsease placed diagonally in each corner.”9 There are also seven flowers embroidered on the spine of the book and the initials “KP” on the center of both the front and back covers. As Swain explains, “KP” was not meant to be a slight, but it was Katherine’s own preference to use her maiden name.10 Elizabeth clearly planned out every aspect of her book to be meaningful to her stepmother, from her title to the embroidered forget-​me-​nots down the spine of the cover.11 Elizabeth did everything she could to both impress and connect with Katherine Parr so that Katherine would continue to intercede for her with her father. 5 University of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Cherry 36, fols. 2r‒63r. Elizabeth I, Elizabeth I: Translations, 1544–​1589, ed. Janel Mueller and Joshua Scodel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 25. Hereafter cited as Mueller and Scodel, Translations. Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 3. Percy W. Ames, ed., The Mirror of the Sinful Soul: A Prose Translation from the French of a Poem by Queen Margaret of Navarre, Made in 1544 by the Princess (Afterwards Queen) Elizabeth, Then Eleven Years of Age (London: Asher, 1897), 31. Steven May, ed., Queen Elizabeth, I: Selected Works (New York: Washington Square Press, 2004), 87. 6 Starkey, Elizabeth, 35.

7 Letters and Papers, vol. 19, pt. 2, entry 4.

8 Susan Frye, “Sewing Connections: Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth Talbot, and the Seventeenth-​ Century Anonymous Needleworkers,” in Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England, ed. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 48. 9 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 259.

10 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 259. 11 Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 18.

37

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

37

Elizabeth added an English-​language dedication to Katherine, dated December 30, 1544.12 Elizabeth’s dedication begins “To ovr most noble and vertuous quene Katherin, Elizabeth her humble daughter wisheth perpetuall felicitie and euerlastyng ioye” (40).13 Her dedication continues by following a typical rhetorical pattern of dedications to royal Tudor women by first praising Katherine for her “feruent zeale” and “all godly lerning” and then explaining why Elizabeth chose to dedicate this particular book and give it to Katherine (40). Next, Elizabeth mentions an esteemed antique figure, Aristotle, and how she learned from him that idleness decreases one’s ability to learn and study, so she translated this book so as to continue learning. Elizabeth then notes her own “symple witte, and small lerning,” but she has undertaken this translation by the grace of God (42). Finally, Elizabeth directly addresses Katherine, admitting that her translation has its flaws, “nor els worthy to come in youre graces handes,” but Elizabeth trusts “that the fyle of youre excellent witte, and godly lerning, in the reding of it … shall rubbe out, polishe; and mend (or els cause to mende) the wordes” (42). Elizabeth ends her dedication with a prayer asking God “to garaunte vnto youre highness the sam new yeres day, a lucky and a prosperous yere, with prosperous yssue” (42). There is only one sentence where Elizabeth’s dedication veers from traditional dedications given by clients to potential patrons. Elizabeth writes: “But i hope, that after to haue ben in youre graces handes: there shall be nothinge in it worthy of reprehension and that in the meane whyle no other (but your highnes onely) shal rede it” (42). Often, dedicators gave their translations or original works to their patrons in a presentation manuscript before sending the final version to a printer. Their hope would be that the patron would appreciate their gift, pass it to others to be read, and support the manuscript into print. Also, an included dedication to a royal patron could add authority to a printed text. For Elizabeth, she did not want Katherine to pass around her text. Most likely, Elizabeth had no intention of printing her text, so she did not need Katherine to approve of it publicly. However, Elizabeth’s desire of her translation to remain private and in the hands of Katherine was not respected, and three years later John Bale corrected her translation and had it printed. Bale’s printed edition of Elizabeth’s translation will be addressed in the final chapter. Although the idea of Katherine Parr running a “scholarly royal nursery” has since been debunked, it is clear that Katherine had an influence over and relationship with all three of Henry VIII’s children; from receiving gifts from Elizabeth to spending time in Mary’s household before her marriage to Henry, to encouraging Mary to translate part 12 Brenda Hosington has recently published on this dedication, yet her essay focuses on the dedication’s relationship to Calvin’s text. Hosington, “ ‘How we ovght’.”

13 All quotations come from Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 40–​43. Exact page numbers will be cited in parentheses next to quotes. A transcription of Elizabeth’s dedication can also be found in Collected Works, 6–​7. Marc Shell also provides a transcription of the dedication and photocopies of the original manuscript. Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 111–​12, fols. 2r‒4v. A transcription of Elizabeth’s dedication can be found in ACFLO, 6‒7. Elizabeth’s entire dedication, plus notes on language and commentary appear in May, Queen Elizabeth, 94–​97.

38

38 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations of the New Testament into English and extant letters between Katherine and Edward, Katherine was an involved stepmother.14 In June 1544, Elizabeth and Mary were put back in the succession and Elizabeth began writing letters to Katherine. In July that year Edward, Mary and Elizabeth all dined with Katherine and Henry before he departed for France. Six months later, Elizabeth gave Katherine her first translated gift.15 Likely, Elizabeth was already on good terms with her father at the time of the Katherine Parr marriage, but as Katherine was friendly and encouraging with no children of her own, she could have become a mother-​figure for at least the two younger Tudor children. Katherine did not reconcile the girls with their father, nor did she influence Henry’s final Act of Succession, but she did help create a stable family environment at the end of Henry’s reign.16 After Anne Boleyn’s death, Mary and her father reconciled and Mary had a good relationship with both of her half-​siblings. Katherine Parr simply was a queen with no motivation of her own to drive the family apart and favor one child over another. No matter Katherine’s level of influence, I suggest that Elizabeth meant for this text to be special and private to Katherine so that Katherine would find favor with it and give Elizabeth more favor at court. As a younger, bastardized daughter, Elizabeth did not have much standing. But now recently reinstated into the line of succession, Elizabeth needed to have favor with her father and stepmother, so as not to be excluded again, especially if Henry and Katherine were to have children of their own, as Elizabeth’s prayer for Katherine anticipated Katherine’s potential “yssue” in the coming year. It was only with Henry and Katherine’s wedding on July 12, 1543 that all three of Henry’s children were together in the same household, so it is quite possible that with Elizabeth’s new-​found favor at court she made an attempt to show loyalty, which reflected her desire not to be de-​elevated again.17 As previously noted, Elizabeth’s formal schooling only began with her reinstatement, with Jean Belmain teaching Elizabeth French from 1544 to 1546, at which time he was reassigned as Edward’s French tutor.18 Elizabeth’s translation from French after less than a year of lessons must be evidence of her ability to pick 14 James McConica suggested that Katherine Parr provided a “scholarly royal nursery” for all three Tudor children, yet revisionist scholarship does not give Katherine this much credit. McConica, English Humanists, 7, 201, 215. Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 2. Pollnitz, Princely Education, 235–​36. Maria Dowling, Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII (London:  Croon Helm, 1986), 211, 235. Susan James sees a via media as to Katherine’s influence on royal education. James, Catherine Parr, 115. David Starkey differs here, in that he sees Katherine and Elizabeth as friendly, but it was because of Henry VIII that Elizabeth regained favor, not Katherine Parr. Starkey, Elizabeth, 28–​29. Edward VI, Literary Remains of King Edward VI, ed. John Gough Nichols, 2 vols. (London: Nichols, 1857), 9, 12, 13, 16, 22–​23, 26, 30, 33, 38–​39, 41–​42, 44–​47, 49, 51–​52. 15 Hosington, “ ‘How we ovght’,” 503.

16 Melita Thomas, The King’s Pearl: Henry VIII and His Daughter Mary (Stroud: Amberley, 2017), 261–​62. 17 McConica, English Humanists, 215. 18 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 243.

39

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

39

up languages quickly and her desire to show her father and stepmother that their new attention to her was not going to waste.19 Elizabeth’s dedication to Katherine is not only important because like dedications to other Tudor royal women (Elizbeth included) it follows a typical rhetorical pattern, but also because in it Elizbeth supplicates herself to her stepmother, aligns herself with evangelical religion, and shows her filial bond with and obedience to Katherine. Yet, she also omits her father from the dedication.20 Elizabeth never mentions her father by name, but it is clear that based on the timing and her deferential language to Katherine that Elizabeth was seeking to establish and build a loving relationship with her stepmother so that Katherine would in turn keep Elizabeth in favor at court and with her father. Also omitted from the dedication is any mention of Marguerite of Navarre as the author; perhaps she was still considered too evangelical for her book to be an acceptable topic at Henry’s court, even if it was an acceptable topic for Katherine Parr.21 Percy W. Ames suggests that Elizabeth neglecting to name Marguerite in the dedication to Katherine is likely because Elizabeth knew nothing of her, and he blames this on Anne Boleyn being dead who would have told her stories from her time with Marguerite. However, Elizabeth’s translation of Marguerite’s text may have also pleased Henry because he and Marguerite had a friendly relationship and Marguerite desired from Henry a portrait of him, the queen (Anne of Cleves), and his children in 1540.22 David Starkey suggests that a letter written by Katherine Parr to Henry VIII in July 1544 echoes the sentiments expressed by Marguerite de Navarre, later summarized in the dedication by Princess Elizabeth.23 In the letter, as in Elizabeth’s description of Marguerite’s text, is the doctrine of justification as Katherine defines her and Henry’s relationship. Starkey argues that the thoughts in Katherine’s letter were not original to her, and in fact were inspired by Marguerite’s poem. He goes so far as to suggest that “not only was Catherine reading and studying the Miroir herself during the summer of 1544; 19 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 243. Here, Pollnitz suggests that Elizabeth learned all languages quickly. James, Catherine Parr, 113, 114. James suggests that Elizabeth’s translations were “not mere courtesy gifts” and that Elizabeth sent her stepmother translations to please her so that Katherine would be a “champion” for her with her father. Swain suggests that Elizabeth’s translations to Katherine were a “school-​girl’s gift,” “to demonstrate … progress and industry to her cultivated and erudite stepmother.” Swain does not read any political motivation into Elizabeth’s translations, only skillfulness and thought. Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 259, 263. Heal notes that texts given by children were often done so “to assure parents of their skills.” Heal, The Power of Gifts, 46. 20 Anne Lake Prescott argues that Elizabeth’s omissions and deviations from her source text “indicate at best a confused anxiety and at worst a deep anger, particularly at her father.” Prescott, “The Pearl,” 69. 21 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 29. Ames, The Mirror, 29–​30.

22 Prescott, “The Pearl,” 65. Letters and Papers, vol. 15, entry 543.

23 Starkey never cites his source letter, however he must be referring to the British Library, Lansdowne MS 1236, fol. 9r. It is reprinted in Complete Works, 62–​64. Mueller makes no such connection to Marguerite’s poem.

40

40 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations she was also reading with Elizabeth.”24 No other studies of Elizabeth’s translations make this same assertion, nor do any of Katherine Parr’s biographers. Susan James makes no mention other than of the gift itself and Katherine’s impact on the education and family life of her step-​children. While there is no evidence to support Starkey’s supposition, it is possible, as Elizabeth spent the summer, July to September, with Katherine at Hampton Court Palace while Henry was in France. No matter if Katherine and Elizabeth studied Marguerite’s text together or individually, what is clear is that both Katherine and Elizabeth had an interest in an evangelical theology and that Elizabeth capitalized on that mutual interest to her own benefit.

1546 Dedication to Katherine Parr

The next year, New Year’s 1546, at twelve years old, Elizabeth gave two translated manuscripts as New Year’s gifts; one she gave to her father, and the other she gave to Katherine Parr. Elizabeth’s second extant gift manuscript to Katherine is an English translation of John Calvin’s Institution de la Religion Chrestienne (Institution of the Christian Religion).25 Elizabeth wrote a lengthy dedication in French to her stepmother, dated December 30, 1545. Mueller and Scodel suggest that Jean Belmain had a large hand in this translation and the text selection, especially as the French dedication contains elements of Belmain’s own French style.26 Belmain was also a “Huguenot and correspondent of Calvin’s,” so he probably had some personal motivation for wanting Elizabeth to translate this text. Elizabeth begins her dedication: “To the most high, most illustrious and magnanimous Princess Katherine, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Elizabeth, her most humble daughter, gives greeting and due obedience” (213).27 From the outset, as in the dedication given the year prior, Elizabeth establishes herself as at the mercy of Katherine. Elizabeth begins the body of the dedication by noting how since antiquity men have written about notable things that were done so that they could be preserved and remembered. Yet, as modern (or rather early modern) languages were not yet developed, they used art, images, and figures as an act of memorialization. It is in this section of the dedication 24 Starkey, Elizabeth, 48. Starkey repeats his assertion in his biographies of Henry VIII’s six wives. David Starkey, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 752. James, Catherine Parr, 108–​20.

25 Edinburgh National Archives of Scotland, MS RH 13/​78, fols. 1r‒89v. According to Swain, this volume was “acquired some time in the eighteenth century by Walter Ross,” an antiquarian from Edinburgh, and was given by him to Robert Dundas, Solicitor-​General of Scotland from 1784–​1789, before ending up in the Register House. Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 264. 26 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 204–​5.

27 Mueller and Scodel offer a side-​by-​side comparison of the French dedication and their own English translation. Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 212–​19. Here, I am using their English translation and page numbers for quotations will be cited using in text parentheses. Another translation of Elizabeth’s dedication can be found in Collected Works, 10–​13. A French transcription of Elizabeth’s dedication can be found in ACFLO, 9–​12.

41

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

41

specifically that Belmain’s influence can be seen. Elizabeth’s references to antiquity and her writing style here are much more sophisticated that in her other three manuscript dedications. Finally, all of Elizabeth’s allusions are made clear when she declares that no art or engraving are as revealing as speech and words, which are the most “intellectual and spiritual” medium for discussing and understanding God (215). Indeed, letters allow “the image of the mind, wit, and understanding, together with the speech and intention of the man,” to be “perfectly known” (215). Here, Elizabeth reveals her understanding of God, which as it happens is the same as Calvin in the text she has translated.28 However, it was typical for dedications to contain allusions to classical and antique sources so as to explain why those chose their text or to give it authority. Elizabeth might have been aligning herself with Calvin’s idea of the primacy of Scripture, but she also simply could have been modeling her own dedication off of those that had been given to her or she had seen in other book dedications. Furthermore, “God by His Word and Scripture can be seen, heard, and known for who He is, inasmuch as it is permitted and necessary for our salvation” (215). Elizabeth is expressing the reformed idea that God can only be known through Scripture, the written word, and that other ceremonies and iconography are not necessary. While this might not have been exactly Elizabeth’s understanding or belief (as it would be impossible for a modern person to determine her personal religion at age twelve), this was the belief of Calvin and most certainly the belief of Katherine Parr. Moreover, “God by His Word” was a phrase that Henry VIII used to support the royal supremacy, so Elizabeth acknowledged both the superiority of Scripture and the superiority of her father to distribute Scripture.29 Elizabeth then moves on to explain how and why she selected this text to give to Katherine. Elizabeth decided to translate this book into her mother tongue because its source is Scripture, so it “has power to ravish, inspire, and give knowledge to the most stupid and ignorant beings alive” (217). She also decided to translate it “word for word,” not to show off her language skills, but for Katherine to understand her zeal for the subject (217). The idea of a “word for word” translation also alludes to Elizabeth’s desire to show her stepmother that she understands the importance of Scripture as the only words needed to understand God. Finally, Elizabeth concludes her dedication with modesty and supplication, by asking Katherine to excuse her mistakes and accept this book as a show of duty to her. Elizabeth also hopes that her book will “assist the fervent zeal and perfect love that you bear towards the selfsame God who created all things” (219). Elizabeth ends with a prayer that God will use Katherine’s “royal voice” as a “true instrument of His Word, so as to serve as a mirror and lamp to all true Christian men and women” (219). Elizabeth’s second dedication to Katherine Parr follows a very similar pattern to the first. Elizabeth praises Katherine, explains her text and why she chose it, offers 28 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 205. 29 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 247.

42

42 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations it to Katherine, and then ends with modesty, supplication, and prayer. Likewise, she also never mentions Calvin by name, only that she was translating a chapter of a book inspired by Scripture. Three years earlier, organist John Marbeck was convicted of heresy for copying one of Calvin’s letters, so Elizabeth was wise to not mention his name when her father may still have not accepted his ideas.30 However, this dedication is much more formal and sophisticated than her first dedication to Katherine and must have had more influence and help from her French tutor, who also would have had an interest in garnering royal favor, showing off his pupil’s abilities, and transmitting an evangelical text. Elizabeth was able to use this dedication to show devotion to her stepmother, evangelical religion, and God all at the same time. What is interesting is that in both dedications Elizabeth shows much devotion to Katherine Parr. I suggest that more than Katherine being a positive influence on young Elizabeth, Elizabeth understood, perhaps even by example of her sister Mary, that the best way of being in the good graces of her father was to first be friendly and supported by his current wife. When Mary was not on good terms with Henry’s queens, she was not in favor at court, such as during Henry’s marriages to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. Elizabeth could have seen Mary’s interactions and understood that if she befriended Katherine and showed obedience and deference to her that she would in turn be in the good favor of her father. Elizabeth writes to her stepmother as an appeal that cannot be ignored because it comes from a pleading daughter. Elizabeth’s prayer for Katherine at the end of the dedication supports this idea by referencing Katherine’s “royal voice,” which could be understood as Katherine’s own written works on religion as well as her actions; Elizabeth acknowledged the power of the queen to influence Christians, readers, and even her own husband. Unlike Elizabeth’s dedication the previous year, Elizabeth did not ask Katherine not to share her translation. This is most likely because Elizabeth was now aware that even if she asked for her translation to be private, likely it would not remain so. She had also already demonstrated her linguistic capabilities and had been accepted at court, so now she could use her dedication and translation to further preserve her position.31

1546 Dedication to Henry VIII

That same New Year, Elizabeth gave her father a trilingual translation of Katherine Parr’s own Prayers or Meditations.32 The cover of the book shows wear. According to Swain, it is made of red canvas with silver silk stitching, of which there is a heartsease in each corner and the letter “H” “between the upper and lower pairs of heartsease.” Also, “in the centre is a monograph worked in blue and silver silk, the letters of which can be 30 Anne Somerset, Elizabeth I (New York: Knopf, 1991), 13. Roger Ellis suggests that Elizabeth’s dedication “is a much more creative response to Calvin than her actual translation … affirms Calvinist positions while accommodating them to a wider understanding.” Ellis, “Juvenile Translations,” 169–​71.

31 Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth,” 23. 32 British Library, MS Royal 7.D.X, fols. 1r‒117v.

43

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

43

discerned to spell HENRY KATHERIN.”33 The spine is no longer original, but is a strip of red leather stamped with an abbreviated title. As the books were given as a pair, this volume to Henry has the same monogram as the book given to Katherine, except that the cover of Katherine’s book is blue with a red and silver silk embroidered monogram.34 Elizabeth translated Katherine’s English text into Latin, French, and Italian and included a Latin dedication to her father, dated December 30, 1545. According to Pollnitz, Elizabeth did not have any Latin education until mid-​1544, after the Act of Succession that reinstated her.35 In a January 1545 memo by William Paget, he noted that recognizing Elizabeth as an heir and giving her an education made her a more valuable marriage prospect.36 So, this trilingual translation to her father less than two years later shows her quick mastery of the language. Like her dedications to Katherine Parr, Elizabeth’s dedication to her father is deferential, but even more so and much more formal, as she is addressing her father, her king, and God’s representative on earth. Her tone in her dedication to her father is different because her relationship with her father was different from hers with Katherine Parr. Susan Doran rightly suggests that Elizabeth’s tone cannot be used as an indicator of love for her father.37 However, David Starkey argues that this letter is “final proof” that Elizabeth and Henry had a good relationship with no hard feelings over Anne Boleyn. He calls her language “sincere.”38 Here, I totally disagree with Starkey’s interpretation of Elizabeth’s dedication. He reads too much into her dedication, such as her sentence on inheriting Henry VIII’s virtues. Starkey claims that as queen Elizabeth fiercely protected the Church of England because she inherited it from her father. He writes: “there is very little in the adult sovereign which is not to be found in this letter of the twelve-​year-​old princess”.39 I do not find it plausible that at twelve years old Elizabeth had mastered her theory on queenship. A dedication to her father required formality, while those to her stepmother required an appeal to maternity to effect change. She begins: “To the most illustrious and most mighty King, Henry the Eighth … Elizabeth, His Majesty’s most humble daughter, wishes all happiness, and begs his blessing on her knees” (135).40 Mueller and Scodel interpret this line as deference from a child, citing how Lawrence Stone 33 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 261–​62. 34 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 262.

35 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 242.

36 SP 1/​197, fols. 159v and 160r. Letters and Papers, vol. 20, pt. 1, entry 91. The King of Denmark offered his brother to marry Mary, and the king’s response noted that both of his daughters were well-​educated and in a position to make good marriages. 37 Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 18. 38 Starkey, Elizabeth, 52–​53. 39 Starkey, Elizabeth, 53.

40 Here, I am using Mueller and Scodel’s English translation, found on Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 135–​39. Page numbers of quotations will be cited using in text parentheses. An English translation of Elizabeth’s dedication can be found in Collected Works along with an image

44

44 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations has commented that children received the blessing of their parents on their knees.41 But if that is the case, then the sentence also has a double meaning, as Elizabeth may actually have presented this book on her knees to Henry VIII. Dedication miniatures of men presenting books to kings and queens always portray the giver on bended kneed presenting his book to the monarch. Elizabeth physically could have given her gift on bended knee as both a daughter and a traditional New Year’s gift giver. This image was actually illustrated by a woodcut on the title page of John Bale’s 1548 edition of A Godly Medytacyon, in which Queen Elizabeth is depicted on her knees holding a book in front of God.42 While the woodcut is not quite the same as Elizabeth on bended knee in front of her father, the idea is: Elizabeth was offering her gift subserviently in a manner that was conventional at the time. Most likely, Elizabeth did not present her gifts in person, but had one of her servants deliver them. In the Privy Purse accounts of Princess Mary, it is often noted that she paid the servant of the gift giver for the delivery of the New Year’s gift. In fact, in January 1544 Mary received a gift from Lady Margaret Douglas, and there is a note that it was delivered by Margaret in person.43 If that was so unusual that it was worth mentioning in the expense accounts, it is not unreasonable to assume that Elizabeth had someone deliver gifts for her, thereby requiring the gifts to be very personal and meaningful to make an impact on the king, queen, and Edward. Frye suggests that even if Elizabeth’s gift receivers did not see her in person, her gifts to them were reminders of her existence, showing that she was aware of how to use courtly self-​display.44 In her physical absence, adding a dedication to her translation could have testified her affection for and her alliance to her family, especially as “writing in one’s own hand was a sign of the connection between the sender and the recipient.”45 After explaining how an immortal soul is more important than actions of an earthly body, Elizabeth praises her father “as your majesty is of such excellence that none or few are to be compared with you in royal and ample marks of honor” (136); Elizabeth is bound to him because he is both her king and her father. Next, Elizabeth of the first page of the dedication, Collected Works, 8–​10. A  French transcription of Elizabeth’s dedication can be found in ACFLO, 8–​9. 41 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 135n3. Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–​1800 (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), 122.

42 Marguerite of Navarre, A godly medytacyon of the christen sowle, concerninge a loue towardes God and hys Christe, compyled in frenche by lady Margarete quene of Nauerre, and aptely translated into Englysh by the ryght vertuouse lady Elyzabeth doughter to our late souerayne Kynge Henri the. viij, ed. John Bale (Wesel: Dirik van der Straten, 1548). STC 17320.

43 Frederic Madden, Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, Daughter of King Henry the Eighth, Afterwards Queen Mary: With a Memoir of the Princess, and Notes (London: William Pickering, 1831), 143. 44 Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess,” 44.

45 Erin A. Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in Sixteenth-​Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 60.

45

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

45

explains why she chose to give him a translation of Katherine’s text. “Gladly I sought, which it was my duty to do, by what means I might offer to your greatness the most outstanding tribute that both my capacity and my diligence could discover” (136). Her translations might be unpolished, but the king should find her manuscript an acceptable gift because it shows God’s love, “for nothing ought to be more acceptable to a king, whom philosophers regard as a god on earth” (136). Her language here is interesting, as it is both very impersonal, yet could have been better stated as her father was God’s representative on earth, rather than a god on earth. Perhaps this was simply a matter of her language skills for her age. Elizabeth continues to justify her selection of text, “which work, since it is pious, and by the pious exertion and great diligence of a most illustrious queen has been assembled in English, and on that account may be more desired by all” (136). Here Elizabeth does not mention her stepmother by name, but does infer that a book’s connection to royalty gives authority to a text, while being vernacular widens its potential audience. To further the royal connection to this particular book, Elizabeth notes that this book was written by a queen for her king (as Prayers or Meditations was dedicated to Henry), then translated by the king’s daughter, making Elizabeth “not only as an imitator of your virtues but also as an inheritor of them” (136). Here, Elizabeth was not implying that she was his political heir, but rather, referencing Hebrews 6:12, where Paul instructs the Jews to imitate through faith, thereby inheriting the Kingdom of God.46 Typically, Elizabeth asks her father to forgive her youthful mistakes, but if he finds the translation favorable, it will encourage her to know and fear God while more dutifully following her king, “as I do not doubt, indeed, that your fatherly goodness and royal prudence will esteem this inward labor of my soul not less than any other mark of honor” (137). She concludes her dedication by asking God to guide and protect the king. Even though this dedication was given to her father, it is markedly different from the two dedications that Elizabeth wrote to Katherine Parr. Here, Elizabeth appeals to Henry as her father and her king, while she only really addressed Katherine as her stepmother and spiritual advisor. Mueller and Scodel suggest that this translation “made a bid for the attention of her nearest relations, the king and queen, on something like equal, adult terms.”47 This assertion seems less likely than Elizabeth using her translation to show deference to her father while at the same time showing that her new foreign language education was not for nothing. Prescott suggests that this translation is illustrative of her feelings toward her family and shows anger toward her father based on her language changes and omissions. Although Prescott’s entire interpretation is very critical of Henry VIII.48 Obviously, Katherine did not have as much royal authority as Henry, but Elizabeth valued her relationship with Katherine as a woman with whom she had close contact. However, Elizabeth was bound to offer a gift to her father, whether she had contact with 46 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 247. 47 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 134. 48 Prescott, “The Pearl,” 68, 72.

46

46 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations him or not, and used her language to express not only her duty to him, but also her desire to stay in his good favor.49 Also, Elizabeth gives no mention of Henry’s education or relationship of his being learned, but rather offered him her respect because he was divinely chosen to be God’s representative on earth. Elizabeth’s manuscript also shows her proper upbringing, and therefore her suitability to be third in line of succession.50 Finally, she repeatedly alludes to a connection among herself, Katherine Parr, and Henry. Perhaps this was her way of facilitating a close relationship with her father was through her stepmother. By showing him that she had Katherine’s favor, Henry would also find favor with her, especially as she was his younger daughter and did not have nearly as much influence at court as did Mary.51 Also, Elizabeth placed herself in dynastic connection with parents who were known for both their learning and their spirituality, thereby increasing her own. Doran points out that Elizabeth mentioned her family lineage six times in the dedication and on the embroidered cover she included an eglantine rose, a symbol of the house of York. These royal references affirm that Elizabeth had anxiety over her place within the royal family and used her New Year’s gift as an opportunity for her father to return her well-​wishes and confirm her place within the family.52

Dedication to King Edward

Elizabeth’s fourth extant manuscript translation and dedication that she completed as a princess is a Latin translation of Bernardino Ochino’s sermon “Che cosa è Christo, & per che venne al mondo” (“What is Christ and Why He Came into the World”).53 There is no record of its original cover, but it is currently bound in nineteenth-​century red velvet.54 She gave this particular manuscript to her brother, Edward, sometime when he was king, as the Latin dedication is dated December 30 but does not give a year. Unlike her previous three translations, Elizabeth names her source author. Ochino was an Italian Catholic friar turned Protestant reformer. Ochino fled to London from Augsburg in 1547 and was welcomed by reformers at Edward’s court, particularly John Cheke and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.55 He then served as a prebend of Canterbury Cathedral 49 Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 20. 50 Frye, “Sewing Connections,” 47.

51 Schutte, “Perceptions of Princesses,” 75. Richards, Elizabeth I, 13, 17–​18. Klein, “Your Humble Handmade,” 482.

52 Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 20–​21. Brenda Hosington also points out Elizabeth’s emphasis on her being daughter of the king. Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth,” 22. 53 Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS Bodl. 6, fols. 1‒36r. For a discussion of Elizabeth’s use of Latin in the translation, see Vittorio Gabrieli, “Bernardino Ochino: ‘Sermo de Christo’. Un inedito de Elisabetta Tudor,” La Cultura. Revista di filosofia, letturatura e storia 21, no. 1 (1983): 151–​74.

54 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 265.

55 Hosington, “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations,” 123.

47

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

47

and received a pension from Edward from 1547 to 1553, when he left due to Mary’s accession. Hosington suggests that Elizabeth’s selection of Ochino’s text is demonstrative of two things: one, that Elizabeth was familiar with current affairs, and two, that she was sympathetic to Protestant exiles in England.56 However, her translation and dedication are demonstrative of more than that; Elizabeth had a personal connection to Ochino. In fact, in a book dedication that Ochino directed to Elizabeth in 1561, he mentions that during his time in England he met Princess Elizabeth and discussed predestination with her, yet he does not mention specifically when this happened.57 Additionally, Ochino was personally favored by Edward, which must be why Elizabeth (and maybe her tutors) chose to translate one of Ochino’s sermons for him. Ochino dedicated a manuscript copy of his anti-​papal play, Trageodia de papatu, to Edward early in his kingship, which was later translated into English by John Ponet in 1549.58 Ponet did not provide his own dedication to Edward, but translated and left in Ochino’s dedication to him. A copy of Ponet’s translation was present in Edward’s library, suggesting that either Ponet or Ochino gave him a copy so that he could better understand Ochino’s words in English and favor him with a pension or patronage, which Edward did.59 Edward also owned a copy of Ochino’s Prediche as well as Ochino’s Sermones, showing the impact that Ochino must have had on the young king or at least those around the king who also wanted to influence Edward’s religious policies.60 Mueller and Scodel suggest that Elizabeth gave this manuscript to her brother for New Year’s 1548, as a Latin-​to-​English translation of a prominent reformer would be an appropriate gift for a ten-​year-​old king and would have had a similar tone to the reforming texts that Elizabeth had recently translated for her father and stepmother.61 They further suggest that Elizabeth was late in giving her gift to her brother that year, as there is an extant letter from Elizabeth to Edward dated February 2 (year unknown) in 56 Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth,” 32.

57 Bernardino Ochino, Labirinti del libro o ver servo arbitrio (Basel, 1561), A3v.

58 Bernardino Ochino, A tragoedi or dialoge of the vniuste vsurped primacie of the Bishop of Rome, and of all the iust abolishyng of the same, made by master Bardadine Ochine an Italian, and translated out of Latine into Englishe by Master Iohn Ponet Doctor of Diuinitie, neuer printed before in any language (London: N. Hill, 1549). STC 18770.

59 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cccxxvii. British Library, C.37.e.23. I would like to thank Dr. John Boneham, a Reference Specialist in Rare Books and Music at the British Library, for helping me to identify this item in the British Library’s current holdings. In email correspondence dated October 16, 2018, Dr. Boneham notes that C.37.e.23 has an old shelfmark (484.a.15) crossed out on the page opposite the title page. The book is also bound in black leather with gold tooling of a rose over a crown on both the front and back covers. Nichols describes the back cover as having “roses and crowns alternate, and E.VI.R.,” but Dr. Boneham suggests that it is likely that the back cover has been slightly altered due to conservation efforts. 60 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cccxxx.

61 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 293. Starkey suggests Elizabeth gave the translation to Edward in 1552. Starkey, Elizabeth, 86.

48

48 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations which Elizabeth mentions recently being at court and giving him his gift late because she was having trouble finishing it.62 Indeed, there are three blank leaves after Elizabeth’s dedication to Edward before the actual translation begins. Lawson is in agreeance with Mueller and Scodel that Elizabeth gave Edward her translation of Ochino during the first year of his reign, meaning as a New Year’s gift for 1548, and suggests that the payment recorded in 1548 would have been given to Elizabeth’s servant for delivering her translation to him.63 Additionally, the Duke of Somerset disbanded the practice of New Year’s gift-​ giving after 1548 and then reinstated the tradition in 1551.64 The date of 1548 is probably correct, as Elizabeth herself wrote a letter to Edward on January 2 (year unknown), that “this custom of sending new year’s gifts should be abolished” by Protector Somerset, and in the same letter notes that “my old custom of bringing something or other out of my scanty literary store house—​a custom always very easily performed by me, when very well approved by you—​has been now altogether taken from me,” suggesting she had previously given him some type of translation.65 She continues that she thought about sending a present of jewels or gold, but with the abolishment of the New Year’s gift-​giving tradition, all she sent his was this letter so he was aware of her goodwill toward him. As has been mentioned above, Elizabeth regularly gave New Year’s gifts of translations to her father and stepmother and with this letter appears to have continued the tradition with her brother. So, it makes sense that she gave him the Ochino translation the first New Year he was king, 1548, and then sent him this letter the following year, for New Year’s 1549, when the tradition had been disbanded. Nor was Elizabeth the only courtly lady translating Ochino at this time. In 1548, Anne Cooke, daughter to Sir Anthony and Lady Anne Cooke, translated five sermons by Ochino.66 In 1551, Cooke published fourteen more sermons of Ochino’s that she translated into English, and her translation actually went through two print runs that year.67 All of this shows that during his early time in England, Ochino must have been popular and deemed appropriate for reform-​minded ladies at court. After addressing her dedication “To the most august and most serene King Edward the sixth” (301), Elizabeth immediately begins her dedication with modesty, noting that “if at this time I had something, most serene king, that were appropriate for me to 62 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 294. The letter is currently held at the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS Add. C.92 (formerly MS Arch. F.c.8). For a Latin version of the letter, see ACFLO, letter 7 and for an English translation, see Collected Works, letter 7. 63 Lawson, “This Remembrance of the New Year,” 139. 64 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 292, 293n3.

65 Mary Anne Everett Wood, ed., Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, 3 vols. (London: Henry Colburn, 1846), iii, 221–​23. 66 Hosington, “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations,” 123. 67 Hosington, “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations,” 124.

49

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

49

give, and suitable for your majesty to accept, I for my part would vehemently rejoice at this situation” (303).68 Edward deserved the best things and Elizabeth admits she is only capable of so much, but had good intent. As she was bound by duty and inspired by both her prince and her brother, she offers him this translation for New Year’s. It reminds her of Edward, “since the subject concerns Christ, it can well suit you who learn of Christ daily, and have the next place and dignity, after Him, on earth” (303). Here, if Elizabeth did indeed give this translation to a ten-​year-​old Edward for New Year’s 1548, Elizabeth suggests that Edward perhaps still has much to learn before he can fully act as God’s representative on earth, a similar position to what Mary held during Edward’s kingship. Elizabeth declares that the subject of this particular text is a worthy one, as is its author, Ochino, the only author she ever mentions by name in any of her dedications.69 Elizabeth may have named her source because she was working directly from a book owned by Edward.70 As with all of her other dedications, Elizabeth asks her brother to excuse her mistakes and accept her translation, “to whom I commend this my labor and at the same time also dedicate myself” (303). She ends her dedication with a prayer for Edward to grow in piety and see many more new years. Elizabeth’s dedication to Edward is by far the shortest of her four extant dedications. But what makes it so interesting is that it differs in tone and style from the other three also. It contains no literary allusions, names its source author, offers less complex theological references, and less justifications for the text. The book also contains no embroidered cover and the dedication ends three pages short of the amount of space Elizabeth allocated when binding the leaves. Altogether the dedication is more straightforward and pleads for good favor while offering goodwill. Perhaps, if Elizabeth’s dedication and translation was geared to a ten-​year-​old boy, although educated, maybe Elizabeth was not trying to show off her learning, but make sure that her brother could understand what she was saying.71 In this instance, she was older than her dedicatee, so she needed to offer him respect and her obedience, but had to do so based on his language skills. Pollnitz has recently shown that “despite the romantic tales of the faithful bonds between the Protestant princes,” Edward actually was in more frequent contact with Mary, as she had a “superior position in the succession” and was generally regarded more favorably than was Elizabeth.72 In that light, I suggest 68 Here, I am using the English translation provided by Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 300–​303. Page numbers for quotations will be given using in text parentheses. 69 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 291.

70 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cccxxx.

71 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 293.

72 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 243. Pollnitz further goes on to outline how Edward and Elizabeth used their educations in different ways. Both wrote letters to show loyalty, yet Edward used his education to learn how to defend doctrine, while, despite her ability, Elizabeth only wrote to family and made translations.

50

50 Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations that Elizabeth offered Edward this dedication for the same reasons that she dedicated to Henry VIII and Katherine Parr: Elizabeth gave this dedication as an offering of deference and obedience so that she could stay in the monarch’s good favor. She could have given an impersonal gift of clothing or gilt, but spent time reading, writing, and translating so that each royal person knew that she was devoted to earning and keeping their goodwill.

Lost Translations

There were at least two more manuscripts completed by Elizabeth and dedicated to her father that are no longer extant. Between 1610 and 1616, several visitors to James I’s court mentioned in their travel narratives that they saw a book in the library at Whitehall Palace written in French by Elizabeth and dedicated to her father.73 The volume was Erasmus’ Dialogus Fidei and was on parchment in Elizabeth’s own handwriting. The only additional information known about this volume is that both the translation and dedication were in French and that the dedication began: “A Treshaut & Trespuissant & Redoubte Prince Henry VIII. de ce nom, Roy D’Angleterre, de France, & d’Irlande, defenseur de la foy … Elisabeth sa Treshumble fille rend Salut & obedience.”74 The book also had a decadent binding, but the exact binding was not described. In 1616, in his “Preface to the Reader” of his collected works of James I, James Montague, Bishop of Winchester, described the precedent for kings to write books and why they should be preserved.75 Montague recalled writings by “Queene Elizabeth our late Soueraigne of blessed memory,” such as her trilingual translation of Katherine Parrs Prayers or Meditations and “shee wrote also a Century of Sentences, and dedicated them to her father.”76 It seems as though Montague saw these books in person in the Whitehall library, as he also mentioned seeing several of the pieces written by Edward. No collection of sentences translated by Elizabeth prior to her father’s death is extant, however, she did undertake another translation of 259 sentences in 1563 not dedicated to anyone as she was the current reigning monarch.77 Montague also wrote of hearing of a translation of Sallust by Elizabeth, but he had not seen it in person and made no mention as to whether or not it had an accompanying

73 W. B. Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners (London: John Russell Smith, 1865), 133, 165, 171. 74 Rye, England, 282.

75 James I, The workes of the most high and mightie prince, Iames by the grace of God, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. Published by Iames, Bishop of Winton, and deane of his Maiesties Chappel Royall (London: Robert Barker and John Bill, 1616). The preface by James Montague appears on b1r to e2v. 76 James I, The workes, c3v and c4r.

77 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 332. See also Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 331–​94 for a description of Elizabeth’s 1563 Sententiae as well as a reprint of Elizabeth’s translation.

51

Elizabeth’s Pre-accession Translations

51

dedication. At some point Elizabeth also translated part of Tacitus’ Histories, but this is no longer extant either.78 Likely, one of these books was given to Henry VIII for New Year’s 1545, as a companion to Elizabeth’s dedication and translation of Le Miroir for Katherine Parr, as Elizabeth gave both of them translated manuscripts the following year as New Year’s gifts.79

78 In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth accompanying his own translation of Tacitus’ Histories, Henry Savile mentions her well-​done translation. Tacitus, The ende of Nero and beginning of Galba. Fower Bookes of the Histories of Cornelivs Tacitus. The Life of Agricola, trans. by Henry Savile (Oxford: Joseph Barnes for Richard Wright, 1591). STC 23642. 79 Gibson, “Katherine Parr,” 208.

52

53

Chapter 4

NEW YEAR’S GIFTS GIVEN AND RECEIVED BY MARY AND ELIZABETH

Felicity Heal, among

others, has shown the power and importance of New Year’s gifts at the Tudor court.1 New Year’s was not only an appropriate time to give gifts, but also to receive them, as there was an established protocol of gift-​giving that required the receiver of the gift to acknowledge and give something in return.2 Additionally, gifts were used “to enhance bonds between individuals and families,” which I suggest Elizabeth attempted with the content of her manuscript dedications.3 This chapter examines the New Year’s gift exchange among Henry VIII and his children to show how Mary and Elizabeth gave and received gifts differently, according to their status and abilities. While books were not the most frequently given gift, they were a typical gift that was given to every Tudor monarch at each New Year.4 As such, I suggest that Elizabeth’s gifts of manuscript translations were strategically planned to be New Year’s gifts to her father, stepmother, and brother because this would have ensured that her gifts were at least looked at in the event that she did not present them at court in person and were attempts to strengthen the connection between Elizabeth and her family members.5

1 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 87–​120; M.  A. Hayward, “Gift Giving at the court of Henry VIII:  The 1539 New Year’s gift roll in context,” Antiquaries Journal 85 (2005): 125–​75; Carole Levin, “Queen Elizabeth and the Power and Language of the Gift,” in Elizabeth I in Writing: Language, Power and Representation in Early Modern England, ed. Donatella Montini and Iolanda Plescia, 213–​32 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). See also Natalie Zemon Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth-​Century France (Madison:  University of Wisconsin Press, 2000). For books as gifts see Natalie Zemon Davis, “Beyond the Market: Books as Gifts in Sixteenth-​Century France,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 33 (1983): 69–​88; Jason Scott-​Warren, Sir John Harington and the Book as Gift (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Lawson, “This Remembrance.” 2 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 88–​89, 91. 3 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 4.

4 Lawson, “This Remembrance,” 133, 160. For a discussion of books given to Henry VIII at New Year, see James P. Carley, The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives (London: British Library, 2004), 53–​79.

5 Susan Frye offers a revisionist approach to examining Elizabeth because traditional historiography only examines Elizabeth through the lens of her later years, whereas Frye looks at young Elizabeth from a gendered perspective. She examines one letter and one portrait that Elizabeth sent Edward to suggest “that the one recoverable area of Elizabeth’s early life that demonstrates her ability as a developing political entity is her gift giving, in which materials passed from her hand to the hands of those in power over her.” Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess,” 44.

54

54 New Year’s Gifts Given and Received

Sources for New Year’s Gifts For the years in which Elizabeth gave her dedicated manuscripts, it is difficult to determine if she gave them in person, what she received in return, and what her siblings gave to gauge the significance of Elizabeth’s gifts because extant New Year’s gift rolls only exist for 1528, 1532, 1534, and 1539.6 Surviving state papers also offer few clues as to any expenses that Henry or Katherine may have incurred giving gifts to their children or giving rewards for the rest of the New Year’s gifts that they would have received. However, New Year’s gift rolls do not even tell the whole story of the New Year’s gift exchange. According to Felicity Heal, beginning in the 1530s, gift-​giving became more challenging with the upswing of Anne Boleyn and downfall of Catherine of Aragon. In 1532, Eustace Chapuys reported that the king would not accept Catherine of Aragon’s gift of a gold cup, and then refused to send a gift to Catherine, her ladies, or Princess Mary.7 Here, Henry was aware of the expected protocol of the New Year’s gift exchange, and accepting a gift from Catherine meant that he favored her and had to send her some type of thanks in return. Most likely to please Anne Boleyn he avoided that situation by refusing to participate in the exchange with her that year. For Edward, as previously mentioned, gift-​giving was banned from 1548 to 1551, so information only exists in bits and pieces for New Year’s rewards and receipts for his first two years as king, as well as in extant gift rolls for January 1, 1539 and January 1, 1540.8 For Elizabeth, only one year of her pre-​accession household expenses survives, and this only as a reprinted edition from 1853, dating from October 1, 1551 to September 30, 1552.9 The original account book was comprised of twenty-​six folios, each of which was signed by both Elizabeth and Walter Buckler, her chamberlain. Rather than being a chronological list of household expenditures (like Mary’s surviving expense report), Elizabeth’s expenses are grouped by parts of the household, such as “The Sawcerye” or “The Woodyard,” giving this account the appearance of having been compiled or rewritten from other documents into an end-​of-​the-​year type of report. There is one very general category of expenses that spans four folios, that of “The Camber and Robes—​New Year’s gifts—​Rewards to Officers, Musicians, Servants, &c” (fols. 8b‒11b), and it only has three line items relating to New Year’s gifts. 6 The 1539 gift roll is now housed in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C. Folger MS Z.d.II. It was not calendared in Letters and Papers. The other three are calendared. 1528: TNA, E 101/​420/​4. Letters and Papers, 14 (2), entry 3748. 1532: TNA, E 101/​420/​15. Letters and Papers, 5, entry 686. 1534: TNA, E 101/​421/​13. Letters and Papers, 7 (1), entry 9. For 1528, no information is listed regarding a gift exchange between Henry VIII and Mary. 7 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 95–​96. Letters and Papers, 5, entry 696.

8 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxiii‒cclxiv and cccxi‒cccxviii. For 1539, BL, Cotton App 28, fol. 39r. Also calendared in Letters and Papers, 14 (I), entry 5. For 1540, BL, Add. MS 11,301, fol. 12. Also calendared in Letters and Papers, 15, entry 1. 9 Viscount Strangford, ed., Household Expenses of the Princess Elizabeth During her Residence at Hatfield, October 1, 1551 to September 30, 1552 (London: Nichols, 1853).

55

New Year’s Gifts Given and Received

55

The list of Princess Mary’s Privy Purse expenses is the only real source of evidence for both princess’s New Year’s gift-​giving activities.10 The account of Mary’s expenses ends in December 1544, so it overlaps only slightly with the gifts given by Elizabeth. However, even if information is scarce for the years in which Elizabeth gave her manuscript translations, it is useful to see what the royal family gave one another in other years to measure the significance and importance of Elizabeth’s gifts and compare them to the types of gifts given by Mary, who was typically considered more important at court.

Tudor Gift Exchange

For all of the years included in the extant record of Mary’s Privy Purse expenses, it is evident that she exchanged gifts with her immediate family members every year, with the king being the ultimate dispenser of New Year’s gifts. Several times it is written in the expense accounts that Mary paid for the delivery of her father’s New Year’s gift to her, but the exact gift is never recorded.11 The earliest recorded New Year’s gift that Henry VIII gave Mary was from 1532, at which time he gave her two gilt pots, three gilt bowls with a cover, and a gilt layer.12 There are no details listed as to what Mary sent her father that year. Likewise, in 1534 all information of gifts exchanged between Henry and Mary and Henry and Elizabeth has been left blank.13 For 1539, however, detailed information does exist for gifts given by Henry VIII to his children and those given to him in return. That year, Henry VIII gave Prince Edward several expensive, custom-​ created pieces of plate, often featuring the king’s arms, such as “a bason all gylte,” “an ewer all gylte,” “two pottes chased with panes.”14 To Mary he gave a gilt salt with a cover, a gilt cup with a cover, and three gilt bowls. To Elizabeth, Henry gave a gilt salt with a cover, a gilt cup with a cover, a gilt cruse with a cover, and a gilt bowl with a cover.15 From his children, the information is missing for both Edward and Elizabeth, yet it is recorded that Mary gave her father “a Salte of Cassidon garnisshed with golde the couer being of mother of perle garnisshed with golde weing togethers vj oz,” which were sent to the jewelhouse according to a marginal note.16 The following year, in 1540, Henry gave Edward a pair of flaggons and a pair of salts.17 In the inventory of Mary’s jewels, there is a note indicating that the jewels listed hereafter were gifts from her father on New 10 Madden, Privy Purse, 108. Mary’s privy purse accounts can be found in British Library, Royal MS 17 B.xxviii.

11 Madden, Privy Purse, 8, 51, 82, 96, 143. This occurs for January 1537, January 1538, January 1540, January 1543, and January 1544. There are many gaps in the expense lists that account for no mention of gifts for other years. 12 Letters and Papers, 5, entry 686. 13 Letters and Papers, 7, entry 9.

14 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxiii and cclxv. 15 Hayward, “Gift Giving,” 144. 16 Hayward, “Gift Giving,” 163.

17 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxiii and cclxv.

56

56 New Year’s Gifts Given and Received Year’s in 1543, including girdles, beads, and tablets of gold. Some of which, according to Mary’s handwritten marginalia, she later gave away.18 However, the list indicates that the king gave Mary a costly sum of gifts in 1543. For Henry VIII, gifts were often delivered by servants and then displayed on buffet tables. The gift would then be recorded, as would Henry’s response to it.19 It is no coincidence, then, that Elizabeth’s 1545 translations to Henry and Katherine have been described as “carefully coordinated gifts,” in that they have similarly embroidered covers, with the cover of the book given to Henry being red with blue and silver monogram and that given to Katherine having a blue cover with red and silver monogram.20 If Elizabeth’s gifts are thought of in this context, not only did they have to be personal to Henry and Katherine so as to strengthen her bonds with them, but they also had to proclaim her loyalty and semi-​royal status to other possible viewers of the buffet of New Year’s gifts, which coordinated volumes to the king and queen would have done. Therefore, Elizabeth’s volumes were rhetorically demonstrative of her skill with languages and translations and performative of her loyalty to her family as well as her desire to not be excluded or demoted from them.21 Mary’s expense accounts also have information regarding gifts sent to Mary by Henry’s various queens. In January 1537, Mary paid the servant who brought her a New Year’s gift from Jane Seymour, though there is no mention what the gift was.22 Mary’s jewel inventory list for January 1543 indicates that Katherine Parr gave Mary two items that year for New Year’s: “a Boke for golde set w[ith] Rubies” and “a payr of Braceletts set w[ith] small ples [pearls].”23 Likewise, in January 1544, Mary received a gift from Katherine Parr, but there is no are no details as to the gift itself.24 Also in January 1544, Katherine Parr sent Mary a night gown, but it is not indicated if this was part of her New Year’s gift or a separate gift for Mary.25 As Mary was closest in both age and friendship to Katherine Parr, it is not surprising that there is so much extant evidence of Katherine sending Mary gifts. However, even where evidence does not exist, it would have been expected that Henry’s other wives would have sent Mary gifts too, even if not part of the New Year’s tradition. 18 Madden, Privy Purse, 182. 19 Hayward, “Gift Giving,” 127.

20 Lawson, “This Remembrance,” 138–​39.

21 Heal notes that “royal giving and receiving should ideally be performative.” Heal, The Power of Gifts, 89. She says this in the context of a monarch giving, but it applies to my argument for Elizabeth because her gifts were performances of her educational abilities, her loyalty to her family, and a demonstration of her royal status so as not to be left out of the royal family. 22 Madden, Privy Purse, 9.

23 Madden, Privy Purse, 185. 24 Madden, Privy Purse, 143. 25 Madden, Privy Purse, 146.

57

New Year’s Gifts Given and Received

57

When Edward was king, he received gifts from Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne of Cleves at least for the first year of his reign, but there is no record of what they sent him, only that he paid rewards to their servants for delivering the gifts.26 Likewise, for New Year’s 1552, Elizabeth “Paid to Mr. Whelar the viiith of Januarye, for bringing of the Kinges Maiesties newyeres gifte in rewarde,” but there is no mention of what Edward sent Elizabeth or what gift she sent him in return.27 Due to the stoppage of New Year’s gift-​ giving, and possibly even Edward’s age, it does not appear that Edward, or the Protector, used the New Year’s gift-​giving tradition to Edward’s advantage to both fill the treasury and have nobles and courtiers proclaim their loyalty to him with their gifts. Mary and Elizabeth did not repeat that mistake. Because of the survival of Mary’s Privy Purse expenses, there is a good deal of information available about gift-​giving among the three Tudor half-​siblings. In January 1539, Elizabeth gave Edward “a shyrte of cameryke of her owne woorkynge,” and the next year gave him “a braser of nedle worke of her owne making.”28 Even at ages five and six, Elizabeth created handmade gifts for her family, and them being handmade was noteworthy, as were her later manuscript translations. Mary’s siblings also sent her New Year’s gifts, with Edward sending her “a litle tablet of golde” and a standing cup of silver and gilt and Elizabeth sending her “a litle chene & a payr of housen gold & silke” in January 1543.29 The following year, Mary received another standing cup from Edward and a “braser wrought” from Elizabeth.30 As for gifts given by Mary, there is often some detail about the gift itself, though it is unclear if any survive today. In December 1537, Mary paid sixty-​five shillings for a cap for Prince Edward for New Year’s.31 That same year she paid twelve shillings for silver to embroider a box for Elizabeth.32 It is not clear if she embroidered the box herself, but most likely she did, as other places in her expense accounts specifically list when she paid others for their embroidery work.33 Likewise, in January 1539, Mary sent Edward a 26 Literary Remains, vol. 1, ccxlv.

27 Strangford, Household Expenses, 36. 28 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxiii. 29 Madden, Privy Purse, 96, 99. 30 Madden, Privy Purse, 143. 31 Madden, Privy Purse, 49. 32 Madden, Privy Purse, 50. 33 In April 1540, Mary paid the King’s embroiderer for embroidering a coat for Prince Edward. Madden, Privy Purse, 89. In his index, Madden indicates that Mary gave this coat to Edward for New Year’s, but the expense accounts make no other mention of the coat, so it is not possible to determine when she gave Edward the coat. Unlike for Elizabeth and Mary Stuart, none of Mary I’s embroidery is extant today. Melita Thomas suggests that Mary did not do all of her own embroidery because she was not particularly good at it. Thomas, The King’s Pearl, 229. See also John Taylor, The needles excellency a new booke wherin are diuers admirable works wrought with the needle. Newly inuented and cut in copper for the pleasure and profit of the industrious (London: Printed for James Boler and sold at the sign of the Marigold in Paul’s Churchyard, 1634). STC 23776. Taylor offers

58

58 New Year’s Gifts Given and Received coat of satin embroidered with gold and having pansies made of pearls, but there is no indication if she did the embroidery work herself or paid someone else for their work.34 In 1540, Mary gave her brother a gold broach with an image of St. John the Baptist, set with a ruby.35 Sometimes, as was the case in January 1541, New Year’s gifts were exchanged among members of the royal family to placate bad feelings and offenses. In late 1540, Katherine Howard arranged to remove two of Mary’s ladies-​in-​waiting because Mary was not showing Katherine the respect she had shown Henry’s previous two wives. On December 5, Chapuys reported that Mary had found some way to reconcile with Katherine so as to be able to keep her maids, and to continue to regain both Katherine and Henry’s favor, Mary sent them both New Year’s gifts.36 In a letter dated January 8, 1541, Chapuys reported to the Queen of Hungary that Mary had not yet visited Henry’s new queen, Katherine Howard (married July 28, 1540), but that Mary sent both her father and Katherine New Year’s gifts. There is no mention of what Mary sent either of them, but they must have found favor with Henry, as he sent her back two splendid gifts, most likely one each from he and Katherine.37 Carole Levin suggests that the gift sent to Mary from Katherine was a pomander of gold with a clock garnished with rubies, as there is an entry in Katherine’s jewel inventory marking this item as sent by the queen to Mary.38 However, there is no specific indication that Katherine gave this pomander to Mary at New Year’s, as there is for other items that Katherine gave away. In Mary’s jewel inventory for December 1542, there is an “item a pomander of golde with a Diall in yt.” It seems likely that this could be the same pomander with a clock that Katherine had given Mary the year before, yet Mary, too, gave this piece away, for there is a marginal note that Mary gave the pomander to Lady Elizabeth.39 Katherine Howard’s jewel inventory also provides evidence that she and Elizabeth exchanged gifts in 1541, as it contains an entry of a brooch of little worth was given by Katherine to Elizabeth, but it does not specify when she gave it to her.40 In that same inventory twenty-​three pairs of beads are described, one of which is marked in a marginal note as having been given to Elizabeth at New Year’s earlier that year.41 In January 1543, Mary paid for diverse (unnamed) items and plate from the goldsmith for New Year’s gifts, yet the accounts report that the particular gifts appear poems praising the needle work of Catherine of Aragon, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth Tudor, and a few others, noting that he had seen some of Mary’s needlework. 34 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxiii. 35 Literary Remains, vol. 1, cclxv.

36 Letters and Papers, 16, entry 314.

37 Calendar of State Papers, Spain, 1538–​1542, 305–​6.

38 Levin, “Queen Elizabeth,” 216. Letters and Papers, 16, entry 1389.

39 Madden, Privy Purse, 178.

40 Letters and Papers, 16, entry 1389. 41 Letters and Papers, 16, entry 1389.

59

New Year’s Gifts Given and Received

59

listed “in a bill” that is no longer extant, so it is only known that she gave Lady Margaret Douglas a gold broach.42 The only other specific gift listed is a book for Prince Edward that was lined with gold, but there is no mention if this book was of her own creation, as she, like Elizabeth, had the skill set to translate books. For New Year’s 1544, Mary purchased a chair for her father, which she had covered and paid William Brellont to embroider, and then transported from London to Hampton Court Palace, which must have been where the king celebrated New Year’s that year.43 Mary also paid Busshe the goldsmith for unnamed gifts for Katherine Parr and Prince Edward.44 In January 1544, Mary also paid for a new clock to give to the prince, but it is not clear if it used gold from the goldsmith or the gold plate and the clock were two separate gifts to Edward that New Year’s.45 On January 10, 1547, Prince Edward wrote a letter to Mary thanking her for her New Year’s gift, saying that he would prize it for both its worth and because it came from her.46 Hayward speculates that “a standing trencher gilte hauing a trencher at thone corner and a Scripture vppon the side,” as listed in Henry VIII’s post mortem inventory was a New Year’s gift from Mary to her father in 1547.47 Mary also gave away some of her personal jewels to her brother and sister. In her Inventory of Jewels of January 25 of the thirty-​eighth year of Henry’s reign (January 25, 1547, three days before Henry’s death) occurs an entry of five rings each of gold with jewels. There is a handwritten note by Mary in the margin that she gave all five rings away, one of which went “to the Kyng my brother for hys newyers gyft.”48 It is not clear which specific ring she gave to Edward or the year in which she gave it to him. In the inventory of Mary’s jewels for December 1542, there are marginal notes in Mary’s own hand next to two items, indicating that she gave them to Elizabeth.49 The first is a green tablet garnished with gold and a picture of the Trinity, and the second is a pomander of gold with a dial in it. There is no mention of when she gave these to Elizabeth, but again, they are expensive purchased gifts, rather than handmade personalized gifts. Also, with so many gifts exchanged between Mary and Elizabeth, it is possible to claim that Mary and Elizabeth had a fair relationship during their father’s lifetime. While Mary and Elizabeth may have exchanged gifts at New Year’s because of familial duty, there are other instances in the expense accounts that note when Mary paid for entertainment in Elizabeth’s household and sent her other gifts, such as the 42 Madden, Privy Purse, 100. 43 Madden, Privy Purse, 139, 148, 152. 44 Madden, Privy Purse, 148. 45 Madden, Privy Purse, 149.

46 Letters and Papers, 21 (2), entry 687. See also Literary Remains, vol. 1, 32. 47 Hayward, “Gift Giving,” 129.

48 Madden, Privy Purse, 200. It is not clear what the ring was made of, as in Mary’s jewel inventory list for January 1547, several rings are listed, and the marginalia is not specific as to which ring she gave to Edward. 49 Madden, Privy Purse, 178.

60

60 New Year’s Gifts Given and Received tablet and pomander. Mary may not have liked Elizabeth’s mother, but once Anne was executed and Catherine of Aragon died, Mary and Elizabeth were in similar positions as demoted daughters and Elizabeth was no real threat to Mary’s position. Mary may have even begun to feel sorry for her half-​sister, whose demoted status was no fault of her own. Even when Mary first became queen she continued to give gifts to Elizabeth. In Mary’s jewel inventory list for January 1547, there are two pieces of jewelry listed, white beads and a broach garnished with diamonds and rubies containing the history of Pyramus and Thisbe, each with a marginal note stating that Mary gave these pieces to Elizabeth on September 21, 1553, less than two weeks before Mary was crowned queen at Westminster Abbey.50 As Elizabeth’s extant expense account is only for household expenses, and not her Privy Purse expenses as is Mary’s, there is very little detail of gifts given and received by Elizabeth. In addition to rewarding King Edward’s servant who delivered her a gift in 1552, Elizabeth also rewarded servants of various noble men and women who sent her gifts.51 Additionally, Elizabeth paid the goldsmith Thomas Crococke for guilt plate to be distributed at New Year’s gifts, but there is no indication to whom she sent the plate.52 There is no mention of Elizabeth exchanging a gift with Mary that year, unless one of the other general rewards she paid around January 1552 went to one of Mary’s servants delivering a gift. There is no reason not to have mentioned Mary by name, as the sisters were on good terms during Edward’s reign, unless they spent Christmas together that year and no servant exchange would have been necessary, as the three siblings spent Christmas together in 1550.53 However, the details for Elizabeth’s gift-​giving habits simply do not exist as they do for Mary.

Handmade Gifts

What is clear is that in 1544, Henry issued his final Act of Succession, which reinstated both Mary and Elizabeth into the succession yet did not recognize them as his legitimate children. It was after this act that Elizabeth began giving her dedicated manuscripts and Mary paid forty pounds to a goldsmith for plate for her father’s New Year’s gift.54 While Mary’s gift would have been quite expensive and substantial, and most likely one to reflect her returned status into the succession, it was still not as personal as the gifts given by Elizabeth.55 Besides the silver thread for Elizabeth’s gift in 1538, the only other possible reference to a handmade gift by Mary in is January 1544, when she paid John Hayes for 50 Madden, Privy Purse, 194 and 197.

51 Strangford, Household Expenses, 36. 52 Strangford, Household Expenses, 36. 53 Whitelock, Mary Tudor, 158. 54 Madden, Privy Purse, 170. 55 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 58.

61

New Year’s Gifts Given and Received

61

drawing a pattern for a cushion for the queen. Yet, there is no information if she then made the cushion herself or gave the pattern to someone else to execute for the queen.56 Truly, it leaves as many questions answered as it does unanswered. However, what is clear from the lists of gifts given by Mary and Elizabeth is that Mary may have made some New Year’s gifts, but was much more likely to purchase expensive New Year’s gifts for her family instead, while Elizabeth was likely to give a handmade gift. This difference in gift-​giving is evidence of a couple of things. First, it highlights the disparate economies between the two sisters—​Mary could afford expensive gifts, while Elizabeth could not.57 However, it also shows that Elizabeth needed to give Henry and Katherine meaningful and personal gifts to show her obedience and desire to stay in good favor and a personal gift would be harder to ignore.58 Also, personalized books and manuscripts made good gifts because of the handiwork put into them.59 In an essay on needleworked gifts associated with Elizabeth, both given by her as a princess and to her as a queen, Lisa M. Klein argues that needleworked gifts are evidence of women participating in a cultural exchange, ultimately using handmade objects to create bonds and alliances. Handmade gifts had “intimacy, authority, and efficacy that other gifts, like money or plate, lack.”60 Thus, it seems likely that Elizabeth preferred handmade gifts because they showed more thought and effort and had a better chance of being viewed personally. There is evidence that Elizabeth as queen preferred personalized and even handmade gifts.61 Felicity Heal suggests that Queen Elizabeth received elegant books in addition to clothes and jewels, perhaps to earn favor with her.62 Elizabeth particularly valued glamorous and creative gifts of clothing, preferring personal gifts to purses of gold.63 Sonja Drimmer has shown how in 1567 Elizabeth kept three of 170 gifts, 56 Madden, Privy Purse, 150. 57 Heal notes that books were often given as gifts by women and children because they could not afford to give expensive material gifts. Heal, The Power of Gifts, 46.

58 Susan Frye suggests that with her gifts, “Elizabeth demonstrated her ability to combine self-​ representational strategies in the attempt not only to survive but also to get to court.” Frye sees all of Elizabeth’s gifts to members of her family as political acts. Frye also makes two tenuous claims regarding how Elizabeth’s gifts were received by Henry and Katherine, suggesting that for Henry, Elizabeth’s gifts demonstrated her suitability to be restored as his heir, and for Katherine, Elizabeth’s gifts demonstrated commitment, the bond of religion, and kinship. Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess,” 44, 47. 59 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 46.

60 Klein, “Your Humble Handmaid,” 471.

61 Jane Lawson, ed., The Elizabethan New Year’s Gift Exchanges, 1559–​1603 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Here, Lawson provides an edition of all twenty-​four surviving gift rolls during Elizabeth’s reign. 62 Heal, The Power of Gifts, 99.

63 Janet Arnold, Queen Elizabeth’s Wardrobe Unlock’d: The Inventories of the Wardrobe of Robes Prepared in July 1600 (Leeds: Maney, 1988), 2, 93.

62

62 New Year’s Gifts Given and Received including a pedigree book, a chessboard, and a set of dental instruments.64 The rest of Elizabeth’s New Year’s gifts were likely distributed to members of her household.65 Maria Hayward notes that during Henry VIII’s reign, gifts of plate were often sent directly to the jewelhouse while other gifts were recycled and passed on to others.66 Elizabeth’s trilingual translation to her father was given to the British Museum in 1757 by George II with the royal collection of books and manuscripts from St James’ Palace library, meaning that Henry must have actually kept it and treasured it, thereby accomplishing its purpose.67 Katherine Parr also kept Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass of the Sinful Soul after Henry VIII’s death, and it was later acquired by Francis Cherry, whose widow later gave it to the Bodleian Library, where it is still held.68 If it was not uncommon that as monarchs Henry VIII and Elizabeth only kept a few gifts personally and then recycled, gave away, and placed the rest in the jewelhouse, most likely Henry VIII’s consorts did the same. So, if Katherine Parr kept the volume, it must have held personal meaning and effectively conveyed Elizabeth’s purpose. It is not unreasonable to suggest that as Elizabeth made handmade gifts as a child, when a demoted princess, as a means to secure her status as a second royal daughter, her preference for handmade gifts and their potential personal message continued after she became queen. She understood the power of handmade gifts and valued those given to her.

64 Sonja Drimmer, “Questionable Contexts: A Pedigree Book and the Queen’s Teeth,” in Scholars and Poets Talk About Queens, ed. Carole Levin and Christine Stewart-​Nuñez (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 203–​24. 65 Lawson, “This Remembrance,” 160. 66 Hayward, “Gift Giving,” 141.

67 Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 261.

68 Lawson, “This Remembrance,” 138. Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 259.

63

Chapter 5

PUBLISHING PRINCESS ELIZABETH

“But i hope, that after to haue ben in youre graces handes: there shall be nothinge in it worthy of reprehension and that in the meane whyle no other (but your highnes onely) shal rede it.”1 Elizabeth wrote these words as part of her dedication to Katherine Parr in her New Year’s gift of 1545 accompanying her translation of Marguerite de Navarre’s Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse. However, three years later, in 1548, John Bale corrected her translation, added Scriptural citations, and printed the book as A Godly Medytacyon of the christen sowle.2 He also added his own dedication to Elizabeth. Elizabeth’s translation went on to be published four more times by the end of the sixteenth century. Like the lacuna in a close examination of all of Elizabeth’s dedications to her family members, it also seems as though the five sixteenth-​century printed editions have not gotten nearly enough attention. The scholarly consensus of Bale’s edition is that Bale printed Elizabeth’s translation in 1548, safely after Henry VIII was dead, to mobilize Elizabeth’s name and translation to promote Protestantism within England. John N. King notes that “despite the pre-​Reformist origins of the text, Bale uses it as a vehicle for exaggerated praise of Elizabeth’s Protestant zeal.”3 Aysha Pollnitz and Jaime Goodrich agree that Bale published Elizabeth’s translation as part of his effort to advance the English Reformation.4 Patrick Collinson suggests that Bale turned Elizabeth’s translation into “a godly Protestant manifesto” and “in effect hi-​jacked Elizabeth’s juvenile exercise for the Protestant cause.”5 Some scholars go so far as to suggest that Bale’s afterword, in which he lists previous women who served as queens regent or regnant, is a subtle promotion of Katherine Parr to the regency of Edward VI. Both Anne Lake Prescott and Patrick Collinson suggest that Bale lists so many women who had served as regents it is hard to imagine he was

1 University of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Cherry 36, fols. 2r‒63r. Quotation from Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 42.

2 A Godly Medytacyon of the christen sowle, concerning a loue towards God and hys Christe, compyled in frenche by Lady Margarete quene of Nauerre, and aptely translated into Englysh by the rught vertuouse lady Elyzabeth doughter to our late souerayne Kynge henri the viij, compiled by John Bale (Wesel: Dirik van der Straten, 1548). 3 King, “Patronage and Piety,” 51. Diane Watt also suggests Bale exaggerates Elizabeth’s Lutheranism. Diane Watt, Secretaries of God: Women Prophets in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (Cambridge: Brewer, 1997), 90, 94. 4 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 245. Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 67.

5 Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London: Hambledon, 1994), 97–​98.

64

64 Publishing Princess Elizabeth not supporting Katherine Parr to be one for Edward.6 Yet, few scholars grapple with the importance of Bale’s publication beyond these ideas, and what gets even less treatment is the later editions of Elizabeth’s translations.7 To remedy this, this final chapter explicates Bale’s dedication to Elizabeth and the circumstances under which it was created and follows the textual transmission of Elizabeth’s translation, as well as examines the dedications and paratextual material added by its other two sixteenth-​century editors, James Cancellar and Thomas Bentley. As in the third chapter, I will not examine Bale’s emendations to Elizabeth’s translation or even the extra translations he added at the end of his book. In an ironic twist, the translation that was used by Elizabeth to show her loyalty and fidelity to Katherine Parr was later used by Bale, Canceller, and Bentley to show their loyalty to Elizabeth, and in the case of Bale his commitment to reform. Finally, I will also connect some of these editions to Mary’s own printed translation of the Gospel of John; praise that was first used for Mary in a book dedication was repurposed and reprinted as praise for Elizabeth in a dedication twenty years later.

John Bale and Elizabeth

Much has been written about John Bale personally, from his conversion from monk to reformist to his exile to his edited and original works that supported reform, especially his edition of the trial and execution of Anne Askew.8 According to John N. King, John Bale was a friar and member of the Carmelite convent at Ipswich. In the mid-​1530s, at the time of England’s split from Rome, Bale embraced reform. By 1534 he was suspected of heresy and by 1536 broke from the Carmelite order altogether. In 1539, he fled to the continent, where he published many anti-​papal tracts, his most famous possibly being The Examinations of Anne Askew (1547). King suggests that Bale’s printed works “provided models for John Foxe’s highly influential Actes and Monuments.” With the accession of Edward VI, Bale returned to England in 1548 and is recorded as living at the 6 Prescott, “The Pearl,” 73. Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, 99. Prescott also suggests that Marguerite’s text was too close a mirror for Henry, which is why Elizabeth’s translation could only see print after his death. Prescott, “The Pearl,” 72.

7 Oliver Wort notes that a few scholars have examined Bale’s edition of Elizabeth’s translation mainly to “elucidate his role as an editor of texts.” Wort, John Bale and Religious Conversion in Reformation England (London:  Routledge, 2015), 116. These include:  Sara Nevanlinna, “The First Translation of a Young Princess; Holograph Manuscript Versus Printed Text,” in Proceedings from the Third Nordic Conference for English Studies: Hasselby, Sept. 25–​27, 1986, ed. I. Lindblad and M.  Ljung, 243–​56 (Stockholm:  Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1987)  and G.  E. Brown, “Translation and the Definition of Sovereignty:  The Case of Elizabeth Tudor,” in Travels and Translation in the Sixteenth Century: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference of The Tudor Symposium 2000, ed. M. Pincombe, 88–​103 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).

8 Honor McCusker, John Bale: Dramatist and Antiquary (Bryn Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr, 1942); Leslie P. Fairfield, John Bale: Mythmaker for the English Reformation (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1976); Wort, John Bale.

65

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

65

Duchess of Richmond’s house, along with John Foxe. He was given several ecclesiastical positions before being made Bishop of Ossory in Ireland. In 1553, he fled from Ireland to the continent, where he continued to write reformed texts. He returned to England after Elizabeth’s accession, and on January 10, 1560 was made a prebend of Canterbury Cathedral. Famously, Elizabeth ordered the return of his books and possessions that he left behind in 1553. He died in 1563.9 John Bale edited and had printed Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass of the Sinful Soul as A godly medytacyon of the christen sowle, concerning a loue towards God and hys Christe, compyled in frenche by Lady Margarete quene of Nauerre, and aptely translated into Englysh by the rught vertuouse lady Elyzabeth doughter to our late souerayne Kynge henri the viij. The title page gives this full title, underneath which is a woodcut image of Elizabeth holding a book on her knees before the God, and underneath the woodcut are the words: “Inclita filia, serenissimi olim Anglorum Regis Henrici Octaui Elizabeta, tam Graece quam latine foeliciter in Christo erudite.” Maureen Quilligan suggests that in the background are Roman-​looking pillars with cracks that are possibly a metaphor for the broken Roman Catholic Church.10 Following the title page is John Bale’s dedication to Elizabeth, which spans sixteen pages. Elizabeth’s dedication to Katherine Parr has been removed, yet the preface to the reader (which Elizabeth had translated and included in her gift to Katherine) remains. After the preface is Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass, along with her translation of some sentences of Scripture. Bale also added a lengthy conclusion, in which he offers more translated sentences by Elizabeth from Latin, French, and Greek, and a translation of the thirteenth Psalm of David. The same woodcut from the title page also appears on the very last page of the book immediately above the colophon, which reads, “Imprented In the yeare of our lord 1548. in Apryll.” There are two copies of Bale’s 1548 edition held at the British Library, one of which is not in the original binding and contains no marginalia.11 The other copy is bound in leather on which is imprinted a crown border along with a crown in the center above “GRIII.”12 This copy is slightly damaged, such as on the title page where most of God is missing as is some of the title. For the title, some letters have been hand-​drawn in to replace the missing letters. This copy also contains marginalia, such as on the first page of the dedication, where on the very top of the page is written “popish cruelty.”13 Both copies contain the lengthy dedication to Elizabeth. Bale addresses his dedication, “To the ryght vertuouse and christenly lerned younge lady Elizabeth, the noble doughter of our late souerayne kynge henry the.viij. Johan Bale 9 John N. King, “John Bale,” ODNB.

10 Maureen Quilligan, Incest and Agency in Elizabeth’s England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 54. 11 British Library, G. 12001. 12 British Library, C.12.d.1.

13 British Library, C.12.d.1, fol. Aiir.

66

66 Publishing Princess Elizabeth wysheth helth with dayly increace of Godly knowledge.”14 He then mentions how diverse authors have discussed the origins of “ryght nobylyte,” with some suggesting that it goes back to Jupiter, Hercules, the Greeks, or the Romans.15 Bale continues this discussion of the origins of nobility, turning to England and ideas of what makes a person noble, such as “the mayntenaunce of great famylyes,” “the sumptuousnesse of notable buyldynges,” or “seemly maners of courtesye,” among other qualities.16 He suggests that now there is a new kind of nobility—​the clergy—​those whom he claims were “dygged out of the dongehyll.”17 From here, Bale goes on to name many clergy whom he thinks are corrupt or have risen above their station, including priests “how ydolatrously exalte they themselues aboue the eternall lyuynge God & hys Christ.”18 Instead, Bale offers his own source of nobility, suggesting that it comes from understanding Scripture, not superstition. Elizabeth’s brother, the new king, has this type of nobility because, Not only I, but many thousands more which wyll not from hens fourth bowe any more to Baal, are in full & perfyght hope, that all these most highly notable and princely actes, wyll reuyne & lyuely florysh in your most notble and worthy brother Kygne Edwarde the sixt. Most excellent & godly are hys begynnynges reported of the very foren nacyons callynge hym for hys vertuouse, lerned, and godly prudent youthes sake, the second Josias.19

Furthermore, Edward has “wonderfull pryncyples in the eyes of the worlde” and will become a “noble and famouse” king.20 As for Elizabeth, of thys nobylyte, haue I no doubt (lady most fathfully studyouse) but that you are, with many other noble women & maydens more in thys blessed age … By your godly frute, as the fertile tre is non other wyse than therby knowne … I recyued your noble book, ryght frutefully of you translated out of the frenche tunge into Englysh. I recyued also your golden sentences out of the sacred scriptures, with no lesse grace than lernynge in foure noble languages, Latyne, Greke, frenche, & Italyane, more ornately, finely, & purely written with your owne hand.21

This passage answers as many questions about the textual transmission of Elizabeth’s translation to him as it leaves unanswered. What can be ascertained is that Bale received a copy of Elizabeth’s translation to Katherine Parr and not the original, for in the next line he explicitly says that he received her translation of sentences of Scripture “written 14 A Godly Medytacyon, Aiir. 15 A Godly Medytacyon, Aiir. 16 A Godly Medytacyon, Aiiv‒Aiiir. 17 A Godly Medytacyon, Aiiiv.

18 A Godly Medytacyon, Aiiiiv. Oliver Wort offers a discussion and identification of many of the men mentioned by Bale. Wort, John Bale, 85, 86. 19 A Godly Medytacyon, Avir. 20 A Godly Medytacyon, Avir.

21 A Godly Medytacyon, Aviir.

67

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

67

with your owne hand.” If he received Elizabeth’s original New Year’s gift to Katherine written in her own hand, it makes sense that he would have mentioned that as well. However, what Bale does not answer, and what has become a source of scholarly speculation, is who sent Bale Elizabeth’s translation in the first place. What seems most unlikely is that Bale was working from Elizabeth’s original gift to Katherine Parr. Maureen Quilligan suggests that Bale worked from Elizabeth’s original, possibly sent to him by Katherine.22 Nadia Fusini claims that Katherine Parr gave John Bale the 1545 translation herself.23 Jaime Goodrich also submits that Bale received Elizabeth’s translation through Katherine Parr because Katherine and Bale were part of the same circle of people who wanted to spread reform via vernacular texts.24 She supports this claim by noting that Katherine Parr’s Lamentation of a Sinner was reissued March 28, 1548 and A godly medytacyon first appeared in April 1548, meaning that the Bale/​ Katherine Parr/​Richmond circle could have decided to print Elizabeth’s translation at the same time as Lamentation to connect the two reformist literary females together.25 While Marc Shell goes so far as to argue that Katherine Parr added her own revisions to Elizabeth’s translation, then sent it to John Bale, “her friend—​and Elizabeth’s.”26 Yet, there is no evidence that at this time Bale was a personal friend of either woman. Anne Lake Prescott suggests that Elizabeth’s holograph version “long remained in the Parr family’s possession before being acquired by Oxford’s Bodleian Library, which further complicates how Bale received a copy.”27 Margaret Swain agrees that Katherine Parr kept Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass of the Sinful Soul after Henry VIII’s death, and it was later acquired by Francis Cherry, whose widow later gave it to the Bodleian Library, where it is still held.28 It just does not seem likely that Katherine would send this personally valuable manuscript to Bale with the possibility that it would not be returned to her. What is more plausible is that Bale worked from a copy, and the question becomes who made the copy. Was it made by Elizabeth or by someone else? Furthermore, did Katherine order the copy to be made? And finally, did Elizabeth approve this copy since she wanted her translation to be a private gift for Katherine? John N. King hedges at the idea that Bale worked from the original, yet does not discount the possibility that Elizabeth made a copy in her own hand, writing, “although no evidence supports John Bale’s claim that the princess sent the translation to him for publication … no inherent 22 Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 51. 23 Nadia Fusini, “What Elizabeth Knew: Language as Mirror and Gift,” in Elizabeth I in Writing: Language, Power, and Representation in Early Modern England, ed. Donatella Montini and Iolanda Plescia, 197–​212 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 211. 24 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 94–​95. 25 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 95. 26 Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 3.

27 Prescott, The Early Modern Englishwoman, x. 28 Lawson, “This Remembrance,” 138. Swain, “A New Year’s Gift,” 259.

68

68 Publishing Princess Elizabeth improbability argues against Bale’s claim that she sent him a copy written in her ‘owne hande’.”29 Yet King goes on to surmise that as Bale was supported by Mary Fitzroy upon his return from exile, someone in her circle may have sent a copy of Elizabeth’s text to him, as he earlier received Anne Askew’s interrogation.30 Patrick Collinson notes that little is certain of how Bale got a hold of Elizabeth’s translation, but like King, suggests that it came from another lady at court, possibly the Duchess of Richmond.31 Most likely, Bale worked from a copy made by a third party and sent to him. Not only did he not mention it being in Elizabeth’s own writing, like the sentences of Scripture, but there are several differences between his printed version and Elizabeth’s original. In their introduction to Elizabeth’s translation, Mueller and Scodel offer that “Bale had access to some manuscript version of Elizabeth’s translation other than the one she presented to Queen Katherine,” because of the inclusion of four sentences of Scripture (38v) that were not in Katherine Parr’s version. However, Bale’s version must have had the “To the Reader,” which he does print, but must not have had dedication to Katherine Parr, for he did not include it.32 Of all of the previous suggestions about how Bale came to have Elizabeth’s translation, this is the most satisfying. Yet it still leaves me with one main question: who chose to leave out Katherine Parr? Bale does not include the dedication to Katherine and she is not mentioned in the conclusion’s list of famous regents and female rulers. If Bale included that list to advocate for Katherine to become Edward’s regent, as Prescott and Collinson suggest, then it makes no sense that Katherine was left out entirely, especially as she served as Henry’s regent in 1544. Quite possibly, a copy of Elizabeth’s translation was made by an unknown (at least to us) person, who left out the dedication to Katherine Parr either because Katherine requested him/​her to do so because it was private or because the dedication was not seen as relevant to the translation or Protestant image that needed to be made of Elizabeth’s translation. Whoever sent the copy to Bale must have been a member of both Katherine’s and Elizabeth’s circles if he/​she was able to send Bale both Elizbeth’s translation and sentences of Scripture. We will probably never be able to answer these questions unless new evidence comes to light, so what becomes most important is that Bale had a copy of Elizabeth’s translation, had it printed, and sent it to England to use Elizabeth as a model female Protestant. To do so, Bale continues his dedication, “wonderfully ioyouse were the lerned men of our cytie … as I shewed vnto them he seyd sentences in beholdynge (as they than reported) so moch vertu.”33 He then spends the entire next page praising her translation of the sentences, saying they were done so well that they had to be published. Bale then uses Elizabeth’s translation to promote reform when he writes that her translation of 29 King, “Patronage and Piety,” 51. 30 King, “Patronage and Piety,” 51.

31 Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, 98–​99.

32 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 34–​35.

33 A Godly Medytacyon, Aviir.

69

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

69

the Psalm of David, “by thys do your grace vnto vs sygnyfye, that the baren doctrine & good workes without faith of the hypocrytes, whych in their vncommaunded latyne ceremonyes serue their bellyes & not Christ.”34 He continues his agenda of reform claiming, “blessed by those faythfull tuters & teachers whych by their most godly instruccyons haue thus fashyened your tender youth into the ryght ymage of Christ and not Antichrist.”35 Elizabeth’s translation of the sentences is done so well that priests never “gaue to their superstycyouse bretherne, so pure preceptes of syncere christyanyte.”36 So far in the dedication, Bale engages in hyperbolic praise of her translated sentences simply with the aim to promote reform and his hatred of priests and monks, and it is not until the final two pages of his sixteen-​page dedication that Bale mentions Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass. He writes, in your forenamed boke, composed first of all by the ryght vertuouse lady Margarete, syster sumtyme to the frenche kynge frances, and quene of Nauerre, And by your noble grace most dylygently and exactly translated in Englysh, fynde I most precyouse treasure concernynge the sowle, wherfor I haue added thereunto the tytle of a Godly medytacyon of the sowle, concernynge a loue towards God and hys Christ. Most lyuely in these and soch other excellent factes, expresse ye the natural emphasy of your noble name Elizababeth in the hebrue, is as moch to saye in the latyne.37

With this translation no one can doubt her heart or God’s occupancy in her heart. Strangely, he barely makes any importance of this main translation, just that it came from another queen first, while her four translated sentences of Scripture get recognized as capable of toppling Roman Catholicism. Finally, Bale notes that many noble women have existed in England, but none so important as those who currently live, likely meaning his contact and supporter the Duchess of Richmond and those in her circle, such as the Duchess of Suffolk. Additionally, he will provide a list at the end of Elizabeth’s translation of such great women. Bale concludes the dedication: “thys one coppye of your haue I brought into a nombre. to thintent that many hungry sowles by the inestimable treasure contained therin, may be sweetly refreshed.”38 This time, Bale mentions being in possession of a single copy of Elizabeth’s translation, again not specifically stating if it is in her hand. So it remains unclear if he truly worked from the original or from one “coppye” that was made and sent to him for the purpose of publication. He asks God’s spirit to always be with her so she may “become a noryshynge mother to hys dere congregacyon to their confort and hys hygh glorye.”39 For Bale, Elizabeth was in a long line of pious females who were noble because of their strong demonstrations of faith, such as her great-​grandmother, Lady 34 A Godly Medytacyon, Aviiv. 35 A Godly Medytacyon, Aviiir.

36 A Godly Medytacyon, Aviiiv. 37 A Godly Medytacyon, Bir.

38 A Godly Medytacyon, Biv. 39 A Godly Medytacyon, Biv.

70

70 Publishing Princess Elizabeth Margaret Beaufort. Elizabeth could use her noble qualities and faith to be an example for women as sister to the king and maybe a future queen somewhere else. Following Bale’s edited version of Elizabeth’s translation is his lengthy Conclusion, in which Bale addresses the reader directly, but does also mention Elizabeth again, and as touchynge the porcyon that my ladye Elisabeth, the kynges most noble sister hath therin, whych is her translacyon. Chefely haue she dene it for her owne exercise in the french tunge, besides the spirytuall exercise of her innar sowle with God. As a dylygent & profitable bee, haue she gathered of thys flower swetnesse both ways, and of thys boke consolacyon in sprete. Ane thynkynge that other myght do the same of a most fre christen harte, she maketh it here commom vnto them, not beynge a niggarde ouer the treasure of God.40

Here, things start to fall apart for Bale. First, he mentions that Elizabeth completed this translation primarily to practice her French and secondarily for her own personal piety. This could be true. She may have primarily undertaken the translation to show Katherine Parr her language skills while giving her a text that would appeal to her. Yet, then, Bale goes on about how Elizabeth did this translation for the common good, so that others might take consolation in God. We know this is simply not true: she made it in presentation copy to Katherine and asked her to keep it private so that “no other (but your highnes onely) shal rede it.” This may have been a trope, and even if it was, the most she could have expected it shared with was Katherine’s circle at court. There is no indication that Elizabeth wanted it printed for the sake of the masses; this is just John Bale mobilizing her new status and possible authority under her brother. Furthermore, Bale continues, “the first frute is it of her Yonge, tender, and innocent labours. For I thynke she was not full oute xiiii. yeares of age, at the fynyshynge thereof.”41 He was correct. She was not yet fourteen because she was only eleven at the time she completed the translation. She was only fourteen at the time that Bale published this edition. So, while he wanted to use her name for reform, he did not know her personally or take the time to get these details correct because though her young age mattered, what was more important was using Elizabeth as a model of reform.42 And, while he continues to praise Elizabeth’s youth and virtue, he credits the examples she has in her father and brother-​king. After this praise, Bale presents other noble women who have come before her, such as Gwendoline, wife of Locrine, Lady Margaret Beaufort, and Anne Askew. He places Elizabeth in the long line of noble and virtuous females for her translations, “whych was but a babe at the doynge therof.”43 Prescott seems to overstate her case that Bale listed these women to make a point that England was full of strong Protestant women, while Edward was only a child, going so far as to suggest that Bale 40 A Godly Medytacyon, Eviiv. 41 A Godly Medytacyon, Eviiir.

42 Anne Lake Prescott writes, “The Bale thinks she made her translation when she was fourteen, though, shows ignorance of her work’s history.” Prescott, The Early Modern Englishwoman, x. 43 A Godly Medytacyon, Fviir.

71

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

71

may have done this to promote Elizabeth as Edward’s heir over Mary.44 While this is an interesting idea, it is unlikely that Bale would have wanted either Tudor sister to be queen, preferring for Edward to sire reform-​minded sons. Yet, there is no mention of Katherine Parr, the recipient of the original translation, or any other woman who has been thought to have sent this text to Bale in the first place, such as the Duchess of Suffolk or the Duchess of Richmond. Furthermore, according to Anne Lake Prescott, printing it in 1548 had political meaning: a Protestant princess had translated a work disliked by the ultra-​Catholic and presented it to a Protestant king’s Reform-​minded step-​mother now more than ever in a position to help guide the religious direction of the realm.45

It is true that Elizabeth gave this reform-​related text to a stepmother who supported reform, and that Bale’s printing of it in 1548 was a political act while he was in exile. However, all mention of Katherine was removed from Bale’s edition, thus discrediting the idea that Bale also printed this to politically support Katherine Parr. Additionally, Elizabeth presented her work to Katherine in 1545, before it was ever thought that Edward would rule in a minority. Within the Conclusion, Bale offers four clauses written by Elizabeth in her own hand that he thinks should be examples to other noble men, women, and children, as he finds them more worthy and godly than any works done by priests or monks. The last two pages of the book also contain a translation of the thirteenth Psalm of David, which Bale credits as Elizabeth’s translation. However, recent scholarship has shown that most likely Bale translated this himself.46 Finally, the last page of Bale’s book has the same image of Elizabeth from the title page, dated April 1548. Marc Shell has suggested that Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass was meant to signify her “paternal legitimacy,” as the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn as an adulterer could have clouded her royal paternity.47 He continues that Bale was “a supporter of women martyrs such as Askew and a prophet for women politicians such as a Elizabeth.”48 Shell further suggests that Bale discusses matriarchy under the Romans and gives a list of female rulers, “to prepare the way for Elizabeth to inherit 44 Prescott, The Early Modern Englishwoman, x. 45 Prescott, The Early Modern Englishwoman, x. 46 Ruth Hughey, “A Note on Queen Elizabeth’s ‘Godly Meditation’,” Library, 4th ser., 15 (1934): 237–​40. David Scott Kastan, “An Early English Metrical Psalm: Elizabeth’s or John Bale’s,” Notes and Queries 21 (1974): 404–​5.

47 Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 20. Richards, Elizabeth I, 16. Maureen Quilligan agrees with Shell’s argument, noting Elizabeth was the product of an incestuous marriage and at eleven chose to translate a text that addresses incest, which shows how incest had profound effects on Elizabeth’s personal life and later relationships, such as her lack of marriage. Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 34. Nadia Fusini also examines incest in Marguerite of Navarre’s work and asks if Elizabeth knew of her family’s issue with incest. Further, she ponders why Elizabeth chose the text because of her family’s history of incest. Fusini, “What Elizabeth Knew.” 48 Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 81–​82.

72

72 Publishing Princess Elizabeth the kingdom in uncommon fashion.”49 Moreover, Shell sees Bale’s additions as meant to “prepare Elizabeth and the English people for her monarchy.”50 Obviously, this interpretation is outdated and Whiggish, as no one would have suspected in 1548 that Elizabeth was bound to be Queen of England, with her brother on the throne and Mary ahead of her in the succession. Yet his point that Elizabeth used her writings to stress her nobility might be worthwhile. As previously stated, many scholars have identified Elizabeth’s translations as shows of loyalty to her father, stepmother, and brother, and I, here, have suggested that Elizabeth’s dedications to those family members go so far as to be reverent and obedient so that she does not lose her new status in the succession and position at court. But perhaps not only did her dedications show loyalty and act as reminders of her existence, but also of her “paternal legitimacy” and dismiss the possibility that she was not Henry’s daughter, as raised by her mother’s trial and execution. So not only did Elizabeth have to show loyalty, but also that she had linguistic skills that she only could have had because she was in the dynastic line of Henry VIII. These New Year’s gifts, and Elizabeth’s constant allusions to her lineage, suggest that Elizabeth was aware that these doubts existed and made a conscious effort to dismiss them, even if Shell’s assessment that Bale was preparing for Elizabeth’s inevitable queenship is incorrect. Under Henry VIII, Elizabeth presented her father and Katherine Parr with gifts of translation showing loyalty, which ultimately demonstrated her understanding that she was a minor figure politically, but valued her place within the Tudor dynasty. Yet three years later, after the death of her father, her name and translation were used to promote religious reform under Edward. John Bale does not appear to have had a personal connection to Elizabeth at that time, which means that a similarly minded reformer at the Tudor court must have sent him her translation to be printed abroad and sent back to England to support and promote reform, as it would have been well known that the king’s other sister was not going to do so.

James Cancellar and Elizabeth

Elizabeth’s translation was printed a second time in 1568.51 This edition differs greatly from its predecessor twenty years earlier and exists in only one extant copy in the British 49 Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 60–​61.

50 Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass, 64. While I do disagree with most of Shell’s arguments, his book does reproduce an image of every leaf of the Elizabeth’s translation (Cherry MS) as well as offer a modernized spelling transcript of Bale’s addition and Elizabeth’s original manuscript. That is very useful and allows other scholars to draw their own conclusions and see Elizabeth’s writing even if they cannot get to the Bodleian.

51 Marguerite of Navarre, A Godly Meditation of the inwarde loue of the Soule, concerning a Loue towards Christ, Our Lorde, aptely translated out of French into Englishe by the right highe, and most vertuous Princesse Elizabeth by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, &c. Whervnto is added godlye Meditations, set forth after the Alphabet of the Queenes Maiesties name, compiled by James Canceller (Denham, 1568?). STC 17320.5.

73

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

73

Library.52 It is incomplete and after the title page is lacking the rest of signature A. It contains no dedications at all, but because it is missing signature A, it cannot be discerned if a dedication would have been on those pages. The title page contains no woodcut images or borders, but simply lists the contents of the volume. Appearing first is “Certaine Sentences out of the. xiij. Psalme, written by the Queenes Maiestie, in Latine, French, Italian and Greeke,” which only takes up one page and contains one sentence of the Psalm in each language, the same four sentences that Bale included in his Conclusion of the 1548 edition. Next is a reproduction of Elizabeth’s princess-​era translation, now titled: A Godly Meditation of the inwarde loue of the Soule, Compyled in Frenche by the vertuous Ladie Margaret Queene of Navarre, and was translated into Englyshe by the most vertuous Princesse Elyzabeth, Queene of Englande, in her tender age of xii. Years. After the translation are the five sentences of Scripture that Bale first included in his edition. The final items are a coat of arms, an acrostic, and “Nomen inclytae Reginae Elizbethae, filiae serenissimi Regis Henrici octaui.” Finally, after the acrostic, the book ends with “Godly Meditations, or Prayers, set forth after the order of the Alphabet, of the Queenes Maiesties name,” which is a list of prayers beginning with each letter in Elizabeth Regina. Nowhere is John Bale or Katherine Parr mentioned, just like there is no mention of James Canceller, who was the compiler of this edition (although this likely would have appeared somewhere in signature A). Yet, even without the missing pages, there is no mistaking that this volume was meant to glorify Elizabeth, now queen. On the title page, her demoted status of “lady” was removed and replaced with “princess,” and Canceller calls her “Queene” no less than three times. Even though the title page mentions that A Godly Meditation was first written by Marguerite of Navarre and translated by Elizabeth, that same information is given again on the final page of the translation, appearing almost like a colophon at the end of the text.53 The Alphabet also reiterates her queenship. In this edition, Canceller does all he can to reinforce Elizabeth’s abilities, her queenship, and her legitimacy as a daughter of Henry VIII. While all of this might seem innocuous, the timing and over-​the-​top praise of Elizabeth could possibly be related to the arrival of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1568. Some did see her as an alternative heir, and it would not be surprising if Canceller used Elizabeth’s own translations to bolster her legitimacy as queen, reinforcing her as princess, daughter of Henry VIII, and rightful Queen of England, unlike Mary. If this is indeed from 1568 (with speculated dating as late as 1570), the timing is perfect for this book to serve as an example of Elizabeth’s fitness to rule from the time she was 12, following in the footsteps of another queen and her father. For these reasons, it does make sense that Katherine Parr was removed (if she did not appear in the missing signature A pages) because she was not as important to establishing Elizabeth’s legitimacy as were Marguerite and Henry. 52 British Library, C.38.c.57.

53 British Library, C.38.c.57, fol. E.iiiv.

74

74 Publishing Princess Elizabeth While Bale’s printed edition in 1548 was meant to link Elizabeth’s name with reform and offer her as both an endorser and a studious example of royalty, the 1568 edition was meant to present Elizabeth as a great queen in a line of great queens and legitimate kings. This volume was obviously done to praise Elizabeth’s queenship, not reinforce Protestantism, which was Bale’s goal. The later volume constantly calls her princess and queen and refers to her age at the time of her translation, likely to reinforce her abilities and skills from a young age, surely a mark of a future and great queen. Canceller’s version of Elizabeth’s translation was printed again in 1580. The title was changed slightly, by mentioning that Princess Elizabeth completed the translation, but with no mention of Marguerite of Navarre being author of the source material.54 The title page has no image of Elizabeth, just a decorative border. This edition also contains a new dedication to Elizabeth, this time by James Canceller, which likely would have appeared in the 1568 edition as well. His dedication spans seven pages.55 Canceller’s dedication is followed by The Preface to the Gentle Reader, in which he asks readers, “If therefore, gentle Reader, the homely speech here of do some thing offende thee, consider it to bee the worke of a woman, and yet of none other woman, than was both godly minded, and borne of Noble parentage,” finally crediting Marguerite of Navarre as the original author. Like the 1568 edition, immediately after the preface is Certayne Sentences translated by Elizabeth, but because the 1580 edition is sextodecimo (16mo) sized, the sentence in Greek has been removed so that the three other sentences all fit on one page. This is followed by A Godly Meditation, always listed as the primary and most important text in every edition, an Elizabeth acrostic, the Alphabet of prayers for Elizabeth, and a two-​ page conclusion and colophon.56 It contains no dedication by Elizabeth to Katherine Parr and no preface by Marguerite of Navarre. This edition, like the 1568 edition, does attempt to reinforce Elizabeth as queen, but its smaller size hints that this was perhaps a book to be carried in a pocket and used. Even though Cancellar does not include Elizabeth’s dedication to Katherine Parr, beginning with his own dedication to Elizabeth, he immediately connects his text to Katherine, and by extension also to Mary. Cancellar’s dedication to Elizabeth is a very close replication and reworking of Udall’s dedication to Katherine preceding Mary’s translation of the Gospel of John, as described in the previous chapter. Cancellar’s dedication begins: “To the most excellent and vertuous Princesse, and our gracious Soueraigne Lady Elizabeth.”57 He continues, it is to be considered most gracious Queene, the great number of noble women, which in this our time are now not onely giuen to the studie of humane Sciences, and of straunge tongues: but also are able to compare as well in endyting of godly and fruitfull Treatises, as also in translating our of Latine, Greeke, Italian, and French good and godly books, to

54 A Godly Meditation of the Soule. STC 17321. Hereafter cited as Cancellar. 55 The dedication is located on Aiir–​Avr.

56 All items after the translation are not included on EEBO. 57 Cancellar, A.iir.

75

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

75

the great profite and commoditie of such as are ignoraunt in the sayde tongues: whose actes for their wit, learning, and eloquence, are worthy perpetuall fame and memorie.58

It is very nearly word for word of what Udall wrote to Katherine:

When I consider, most gracious Quene Katerine Dowager, the greate noumbre of noble weomen in this our time and countreye of Englande, not onelye geuen to the studie of humaine sciences and of straunge tongues, but also so throughlye expert in holy scriptures that they are hable to compare wyth the beste wryters, aswell in endictynge and pennynge of godlye and fruictfull treatises to the enstruccion and edifiyinge of whole realmes in the knowleage of god, as also in translating good bokes out of Latine or Greke into Englishe for the vse and commoditie of suche as are rude and ignoraunt of the sayd tounges.59

This sentence, alone, has quite a bit to unpack. First, Cancellar removes Udall’s reformist overtones, by eliminating Udall’s references to women reading and translating Scripture. For Cancellar, women are reading and translating “fruitfull Treatises” and “godly books.” Second, there would have been a great change in the number of women translators from the 1540s when Udall wrote to 1568 (or possibly 1580), when Mary translated the Gospel of John and Elizabeth translated The Glass. Third, Udall only mentions women being able to translate religious works out of Greek and Latin, which is what Mary did for her translation, but Cancellar adds in French, as Elizabeth’s translation came from French. Elizabeth could read and translate from all of the languages that he mentions, which one page later he admits, writing, “in the which woorke your Maiestie no lesse haue shewed yourselfe to be (in your tender and Maydenly yeares) expertly learned in the Latin tongue, than in the Greeke, Italian, and French”; she has shown these skills with “goodly sentences out of the thirteen Pslame of the Prophete Dauid” at the beginning of this book.60 Yet, the variations in between Udall and Cancellar betray the intended audiences of the translations. For Udall, Mary’s translation is for the use of all ignorant in Latin and Greek, who are the general, English-​speaking, church-​attending audience. Yet for Cancellar, Elizabeth’s translation demonstrates her wit and intelligence and will bring her perpetual fame. As I have suggested, and Cancellar confirms, there was a different, more private intentionality with Elizabeth’s translation, even if it was printed and made public later. Both men included examples of learned biblical women, but Cancellar’s list is shorter than Udall’s, just like his dedication. Continuing to be impressed by the achievements of her youth, Cancellar returns to copying Udall, writing, howe happie then is that countrie and people, whose behoofe and edifying, Queenes and Princes spare not, ne ceasse not, with all earnest indeuour and fedulitie to spende their tyme, their wits, their substaunce, and also their bodyes in the studies of nobles Sciences.61

58 Cancellar, A.iir–​A.iiv.

59 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAair. 60 Cancellar, A.iiir‒A.iiiv. 61 Cancellar, A.iiir.

76

76 Publishing Princess Elizabeth Again, removing the reformist overtones of Udall, Cancellar eliminated “in Christ” after “edifying” and added “in the studies of noble Sciences.” At this point in his dedication, Udall turns to Katherine Parr and his praise of Mary. Cancellar takes all of Udall’s praises for Mary and repurposes them for Elizabeth; so where Cancellar praises Elizabeth’s abilities and her youth, he only did so because Udall did so for Mary first. Cancellar writes, “O how greatlye maye we all glorie in such a peerelesse floure of Virginitie, as is your grace … haue by your owne choyse and election, so vertuouslye and fruitfullye translated this vertuous worke in your childhood and tender youth.”62 This echoes Udall’s passage to Mary: O how greatly maye we all glory in suche a peerless floure of virginitee as her Grace is: who in the middes of Courtly delices, and emiddes the enticementes of worldly vanitees, hathe by her owne choice and eleccion so virtuously, and so fruictefully passed her tendre youth, that to the publique comforte and gladfull reioicyng whiche at her byrth she brought to all Englande: she doeth nowe also conferre vnto thesame the vnestimable benefite of ferthering bothe vs and our posteritee in the knowleage of Goddes worde, and to the more clere vnderstandyng of Christes gospell.63

Again, Canceller left off the rest of the passage regarding religion and the translation as being done for the benefit of the commonweal. Later, where Mary’s translation is for the “public benefit of her country,” Elizabeth’s is for the “wealth of the Soule.”64 Here, however, Udall’s and Cancellar’s dedications diverge. Udall goes on to praise Mary’s translation as for the benefit of the country as well as give a brief history of how she was ill and unable to finish the translation, while Cancellar goes on to offer his compilation of texts to Elizabeth. Cancellar continues: “long hath lyen hidden from the sight of your louing subiects: and nowe come to the handes of your faythfull obedient seruaunt, and daylye Orator.”65 Previously, Cancellar had dedicated his tract on obedience to Mary, so it should be presumed that he took the idea of obedience very seriously and is using this dedication and new edition of Elizabeth’s text to prove that he is loyal to her. He notes that he has corrected a previous version (that of Bale, whom he does not mention), dedicated it to Elizabeth, and also added verses and godly meditations in an alphabet of her name. Cancellar repeatedly calls her “gracious” and asks her pardon for presenting this to her, as she is “so precious a Iewell,” and earlier he called her text a “precious Pearle of your trauayle.”66 Finally, Cancellar copies Udall’s language one last time, repeating one of Udall’s rhetorical questions of what reader would not be moved by Elizabeth’s translation. Interestingly, in this question Udall describes Mary’s work as the “deuout and catholike Paraphrase,” which I have argued in the previous chapter refers to Catholic as universal. 62 Cancellar, A.iiiv.

63 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiir.

64 Erasmus, Paraphrases, AAaiir. Cancellar, Aiiiv‒Aivr. 65 Cancellar, Aivr. 66 Cancellar, Aivr.

77

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

77

Yet Cancellar takes no chances in having his work construed as Roman Catholic, and changes the line to “deuout and fruitfull Meditation.”67 In their final prayers for their respective princesses, Cancellar repeats Udall’s sentiments of beseeching God to preserve them, particularly because they inspire Godly knowledge. Beyond the possibility that Cancellar printed his first edition in 1568 to coincide with the arrival of Mary, Queen of Scots, Cancellar himself was highly connected to John Bale. Canceller and Bale had a complicated history together, as each were vocal proponents of religion being tied to the monarchy, yet Bale wanted reform, and Cancellar supported Catholicism. As previously noted, Bale wrote many anti-​Catholic tracts in the early 1540s. By 1546, Bale’s works were making waves in England (as he was living on the continent) and the Privy Council decided to look into his publications.68 The Privy Council wrote a letter to the Mayor of London to look into two men known to be in possession of Bale’s heretical books that had made it to London via Flanders.69 On July 8, 1546, Henry VIII released a proclamation forbidding the ownership of books by Bale, along with many other reformers who had fled to the continent and were publishing books in English, because these books contained “sundry pernicious and detestable errours and heresies.”70 After Henry VIII’s death, Bale’s texts continued to be released in English and Bale even dedicated a book to Edward.71 By the 1550s, Bale and Cancellar had a religious dispute, “in which both men challenged the other’s religious identity,” and Oliver Wort suggests Bale was aggravated by Cancellar’s mention of his Catholic roots because it undermined his new Protestant identity.72 During Queen Mary’s reign, Cancellar dedicated his 1554 treatise on Wyatt’s Rebellion to Mary, in which he singled out John Bale. In 1556, Cancellar wrote The Path of Obedience, in which he suggests Mary brought England back into the Catholic fold and that the Reformation caused chaos within England because it was disobedient to God; for him, religious obedience meant stability within England.73 Oliver Wort also suggests that not only was Cancellar’s work a call for people to come back to Catholicism, but in 67 Cancellar, Aivv. 68 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 91. 69 Acts of the Privy Council, vol. 1, 1542–​1547 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1890), 409. 70 A proclamation deuised by the kinges hyghnes, with thaduise of his most honorable counsell, to auoide and abolish suche englishe books, as conteine pernicious and detestable errours and heresies made the.viii. daye of Iuly, the.xxxviii. yere of the kynges maiesties most gracious reigne (London: Berthelet, 1546). STC 7809.

71 Goodrich, Faithful Translators, 92. John Bale, The apology of Iohan Bale agaynste a ranke papyst anuswering both hym and hys doctours, that neyther their vowes nor yet their priesthode areof the Gospell, but of Antichrist. Anno Do. M.CCCCC.L. A brefe exposycyon also upo[n]‌the.xxx chaptre of Numerii, which was the first occasion of thys present varyaunce (London: Mierdman, 1550). STC 1275. 72 Wort, John Bale, 18.

73 Wort, John Bale, 103.

78

78 Publishing Princess Elizabeth direct response to Bale’s own autobiography, The Vocacyon of Johan Bale.74 Cancellar must have wanted to have favor under Elizabeth and thought the best way to do so was to be pardoned for his previous works promoting Catholicism and criticizing some men who now had favor and positions under Elizabeth, so he entered his name on Elizabeth’s Pardon Roll for January 15, 1559.75 Bale retaliated against Cancellar, continuing to write attacks on him until at least 1561.76 Yet, none of this really explains why Cancellar reproduced Elizabeth’s translation in 1568, first compiled by his enemy. Maureen Quilligan suggests Cancellar changed and produced the translation to make it more useful for Catholic resurgence, also perhaps tied to the arrival of Mary, Queen of Scots.77 It very well could be that Cancellar was attempting to do several things with this text. The first of which was show his loyalty to Elizabeth, as demonstrated by his dedication (presumably part of the missing signature A) and Alphabet, similarly to how Elizabeth used her dedication to show her loyalty to Katherine and Henry. Previously, in 1564, he made a similar frontispiece, acrostic, and Alphabet for Robert Dudley, his current patron.78 He also could have used it to continue to promote Catholicism, as he certainly was not the only writer who attempted to do so with Elizabeth. Not only does Cancellar’s version not have Bale’s paratextual material, it also drops Marguerite of Navarre’s preface, and in the Alphabet includes a prayer against the enemies of the Catholic Church.79 Finally, Cancellar may have used the publication as one final attempt to get at Bale, but taking what was once reformist propaganda, removing all traces of Bale from it, and changing it to promote Catholicism.

Thomas Bentley and Elizabeth

Two years later, in 1582, Thomas Bentley compiled The Monvment of Matrones: conteining Seuen seuerall Lamps of Virginitie, or distinct treatises.80 Like both of Cancellar’s editions, it was printed by Henry Denham. It was bound in three volumes, with the first volume having a dedication to Queen Elizabeth by Bentley. Volume I contains the dedication to Elizabeth, a general preface to the reader, and A breefe catalog of the memorable names of sundrie right famous Queens, godlie Ladies, and vertuous women of all ages, in which their kind and countries were notablie learned,

74 Wort, John Bale, 104. 75 Wort, John Bale, 104. 76 Wort, John Bale, 104. 77 Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 56. 78 James Cancellar, The alphabet of prayers very fruitefull to be exercised and vsed of euerye Christian man. Newly collected and set forth, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1564. Seene and allowed according to the order appointed in the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions (London: Denham, 1565). STC 4558. 79 Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 58–​59.

80 The Monvment of Matrones: conteining Seuen seuerall Lamps of Virginitie, or distinct treatises, compiled by Thomas Bentley (London: Denham). STC 1892. Hereafter cited as Bentley.

79

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

79

and wherof some marked with this marke * were the authors of a great part of this book, as shall appeare; set foorth in alphabeticall order.81

After the catalogue of names, the writings by these remarkable women begin. Included in his catalogue of women are *Anne Askew, *Catherina Parre, *Elizabeth Queene of England, *Iane Dudley Ladie, and Marie Queene of England. So, for Bentley, Mary is recognized as learned and godly, but he does not include any of her own writings, prayers, or translations. And, while he does include writings by Jane Grey, he does not refer to her as a short-​lived queen, but rather as a learned lady. Volume I  also contains the first three Lamps of Virginitie. The second Lamp has its own title page, on which is a border that contains the images of Queens Elizabeth, Hester, Katherine [Parr], and Margaret [Navarre] all on their knees at prayer. Inside the border is written, The Second Lampe of Virginitie: Conteining diuers godlie Meditations, and Christian Praiers made by sundrie vertuous Queenes, and other deuout and godlie women in our time:  and first, A  Godlie Meditation of the inward loue of the Soule towards Christ our Lord:  Composed first in French by the vertuous Ladie Margaret Queene of Navarre: aptelie, exactlie, and fruitfullie translated by our most gratious Souereigne Ladie Queene Elizabeth, in the tender and maidenlie yeeres of hir youth and virginitie, to the great benefit of Gods church, and comfort of the godlie.82

Neither Bale’s nor Canceller’s dedications to Elizabeth are included, and neither is Elizabeth’s dedication to Katherine Parr. However, Bentley does continue to connect Elizabeth and Katherine in imagery, as there is another large woodcut included before the index that contains images of Elizabeth and Katherine. Following the title page, are “Certain Sentences,” again just the Latin, French, and Italian ones, not the Greek, meaning that Bentley must have used one of Cancellar’s editions to reproduce Elizabeth’s translation. After the sentences is Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass, her four clauses of Scripture, and prayers by Elizabeth from the time in which she was imprisoned in the Tower during Mary’s reign and after her own coronation. The final item is a treatise by William Cecil on the goodness of Elizabeth’s translation. Bentley includes Cancellar’s Alphabet on Elizabeth’s name in the third lamp.83 Volume II is only the Fourth Lampe and includes the same woodcut at the end, and Volume III is comprised of the final three lamps, although the seventh lamp appears very different and was printed in London by Thomas Dawson, rather than Thomas Denham. Bentley’s own dedication to Elizabeth is three pages and is a very traditional dedication in which Bentley presents himself as Elizabeth’s servant. From the outset, Bentley couches his dedication to Elizabeth, and his project as a whole, in religious terms: “This long and blessed peace wherin we your loiall subiects doo presentlie liue … dooth giue iust occasion to the godlie to bee no lesse thankfull to God, and to your 81 Bentley, Bviir. 82 Bentley, Fiir. 83 Bentley, 280–​305.

80

80 Publishing Princess Elizabeth Maiestie, than free harted and studious to benefit his church and their countrie.”84 As an offering to Queen, God, and country, Bentley out of the admirable monuments of your owne Honourable works, and some other nobles Queenes, famous Ladies, and vertuous Gentlewomen of our time, and former ages, to address and make readie these seuen Lamps of your perpetuall Virginitie, to remaine vnto women as one entire and goodlie monument of praier, precepts, and examples meet for meditation, instruction, and imitation to all posteritie.85

Here, Bentley mentions that he includes some of Elizabeth’s own works and that this compilation is a testament to her, but he gives no specifics, and is more interested in the state of religion. Moreover, in placing Elizabeth’s works in a collection with other women writers, Bentley “gives Elizabeth’s translation a fundamentally different context from its earlier printings, which insisted upon Elizabeth’s royal and unique status.”86 Elizabeth was still a translator to be admired, but by the 1580s she was no longer singular in her achievements and her church was firmly established. Bentley continues, And now in most dutiful maner commending and appropriating so diuine exercises of the church, vnto your Maiestie the most natural mother and noble nursse thereof; the cause of a virgine to a Virgine, the works of Queenes to a Queene; your owne praiers to your selfe.87

Twice so far he has mentioned her as head of the church, once within her queenship titles and once referring to her as the mother and nurse of the church. He sees this book as both benefitting the church and being testament to Elizabeth. Additionally, like Cancellar’s dedication, he praises Elizabeth’s virginity. However, this was compiled in 1582, one year after Anjou left England as Elizabeth’s final suitor, so her status as a Virgin Queen was now cemented and Bentley’s compilation could have been the first printed book to celebrate this.88 Bentley asks Elizabeth to accept this work as a “monument of the hartie loue he beareth both to the church his deere mother, and to your Maiestie his dread Soueraigne.”89 He thinks that many will profit from reading this, especially as some work was done by Elizabeth. He prays that God will always be with Elizabeth and protect her. Bentley also finds Elizabeth to be a model for all virgins in England. Bentley’s dedication really only has three main points, yet he is very verbose and often repeats his devotion to the church. First and foremost, for Bentley, the church is the most important; God does all things and should be acknowledged for his hand in 84 Bentley, Aiir. 85 Bentley, Aiir–​Aiiv.

86 Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 67. 87 Bentley, Aiiv.

88 Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, 105. 89 Bentley, Aiiv.

81

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

81

all things. Second, Elizabeth is a queen to be praised because she is learned, pious, and importantly, virginal. Third, the country is fortuitous for existing at a time of favor under both God and Elizabeth. As this dedication is not specifically for Elizabeth’s translation, but for all seven lamps, the dedication makes no mention of her specific work or its importance, beyond noting that the work is included. He also makes no mention of her age at the time of the translation, choosing to focus on the current time, the state of the church, and Elizabeth’s choice to remain a perpetual virgin.

Roger Ward and Elizabeth

Elizabeth’s translation of The Glass was printed one final time in the sixteenth century in 1590 by Roger Ward. Like the 1568 edition, it now is only extant in one copy held at Harvard University Houghton Library.90 This edition is the truest to John Bale’s original publication of Elizabeth’s translation, and even includes Bale’s dedication to Elizabeth and Elizabeth’s translation of Marguerite’s preface. Prior to Elizabeth’s translation is even Bale’s original title, in which Elizabeth is referred to as “lady Elizabeth daughter to our late soveraign king Henry the viii,” yet there is no woodcut of Elizabeth, only a decorative border.91 It also includes Bale’s original conclusion, complete with all four of Elizabeth’s “Certain Sentences,” and the translated clauses from Scripture. The only item from Bale’s 1548 edition that it is missing besides the woodcut is the translation of the 13th Psalm of David, giving credence to the idea that it was by Bale and not Elizabeth. As this edition was printed only two years after the Spanish Armada, its anti-​Catholic rhetoric would have been very welcome and that could explain why Ward retained Bale’s paratextual materials.92 Roger Ward was a very controversial printer. One recent journalist has even referred to Ward as a “book pirate,” because he reprinted and sold pirated books around London, to other printers, and internationally. Ward practiced his piracy in the 1580s‒1590s, even spending time in jail for it.93 Described as a “contumacious printer” by Joseph Ames and William Herbert, Ward had illegal printings seized from his shop as early as 1586

90 Marguerite of Navarre, A Godlie Meditation of the Christian Soule: concerning a loue towards God and his Church, Compiled in French by Ladie Margaret, Queene of Nauar, and aptly translated into English by our most gratious soueraign, Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene of Englande, Fraunce, and Irelande (London: Ward, 1590). The item does not appear to have a shelf number, but using the library’s online catalogue, Hollis, the book can be retrieved with number 990060992900203941. 91 A Godlie Meditation, 1590, B3r.

92 Quilligan, Incest and Agency, 73.

93 Phil Edwards, “What Elizabethan book pirates in the 1500s can teach us about piracy today,” Vox, June 1, 2015 see www.vox.com/​2015/​6/​1/​8697947/​elizabethan-​book-​pirates. Accessed August 8, 2019. See also Cyril Bathurst Judge, Elizabethan Book-​Pirates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934).

82

82 Publishing Princess Elizabeth and continued illegally printing into the 1590s.94 In 1590, he erected a second press that he hid in a house in Southwark, which was discovered by a rival printer, with all the printings inside ordered to be destroyed and the printing equipment to be defaced.95 On July 4, 1590, Ward’s shop was searched and contrary to the orders of both the Stationers’ Company and Star Chamber, Ward had printed The Christian sacrifice, which was forbidden by the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with other illegal texts. As a penalty, his presses and printing instruments were defaced.96 According to Harvard’s online catalogue, Ward’s edition of A Godlie Meditations is also bound with Henry Smith’s The Christian sacrifice (London, 1589), Henry Smith’s The benefit of contentation (London, 1590), and John Rainold’s A sermon vpon part of the eighteenth Psalm (Oxford, 1586). At least two of these texts may also have been printed by Ward. He was legally licensed to print Henry Smith’s The benefit of contentation, but it is unclear if Henry Smith’s The Christians sacrifice was the edition legally printed by Thomas Orwin or one of the illegal editions printed by Ward and later seized from his shop. A Godlie Meditation is also not on Ames and Herbert’s list of books legally printed by War, so either Ames and Herbert did not know of it because it only exists in one copy or Ward also printed it illegally and did not add any of his own identifying marks to minimize his potential penalty for printing it.

Thomas Blunvile and Lady Katherine Paget

In what was possibly the final version of Elizabeth’s translation until the nineteenth century, Thomas Blunvile presented Lady Katherine Paget with a semi-​calligraphic copy of A Godly Meditation of the Soule, concerning a loue towards our Lord Christ. Composed in french, by y Vertuous Ladie Margaret Q: of Nauarre, and aptly translated into English, by the right high and most vertutous Princesses, of Late memorie and euer in memorie, Queene Elizabeth—​Who now raigns with Christ in heauen.97

Blunvile, or Blundeville, died in approximately 1606, and taken along with the title, that means this manuscript must have been compiled sometime between 1603 and 1606. It is comprised of thirty-​two quarto leaves and is in contemporary vellum binding with gold tooling; this includes a basic border, a motif in the middle of the cover, the intitials “LKP” for Lady Katherine Paget, and the remains of two ties.98 94 Joseph Ames and William Herbert, eds., Typographical Antiquities: Or an Historical Account of the Origin and Progress of Printing in Great Britain and Ireland, in three volumes, vol. 3 (London: 1786), 1190.

95 Ames and Herbert, Typographical Antiquities, 1190. 96 Ames and Herbert, Typographical Antiquities, 1190.

97 Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS ENG 942. Harvard acquired it from the library of Edmund Butler (1771–​1846), earl of Kilkenny. 98 For a description of the manuscript, see www.celm-​ms.org.uk/​repositories/​harvard.html.

83

Publishing Princess Elizabeth

83

Blunvile dedicates the manuscript: “To the Right Worthy, Vertuous and most honor’d Ladie the Ladie Pagett, Your honors humble deuoted Seruante Thomas Blunvile, Wisheth all prosperitie in this life, and life euerlasting in Christ our Sauiour.”99 After this, Blunvile’s dedication is almost word for word that of James Cancellar, which has been shown was nearly word for word of Nicholas Udall. Blunville writes: “Right Noble and vertuous Lady, a great number of Noble Women have given them selves to the studie of humaine Sciences”100 This is in place of Cancellar’s: “It is to be considered most gracious Queen, the great number of noble women, which in this our time are now not onely giuen to the studie of humane Sciences”101 Blunvile’s dedication follows this pattern, being the same as Cancellar’s, with only slight variations. Where Cancellar lists some historical and biblical great learned ladies, Blunvile writes, “many I could here resite,” but he has chosen to focus on Elizabeth, the late queen, instead.102 Rather, Blunvile asks Lady Paget to “put your honor in remembrance of that most noble, renowned, and vertuous Prince, of worthy memorie; Out Late Soverraigne Lady Queen Elizabeth, whose vertues and praise still liues.”103 At which point Blunvile returns to copying Cancellar’s dedication, beginning with Cancellar’s line “Composed first in French, by the vertuous Ladie Margeret, Queene of Nauerre.”104 Blunvile continues on with minimal variations, in which “worke hir highness hath shewed hir selfe to be expertlie learned,” only changing Cancellar’s “your Maiestie,” to reflect the new dedicatee.105 Blunvile cuts some of Cancellar’s direct praise to Elizabeth, beginning again with “a royall exercise in deed of virginity,” and where Canceller speaks directly to Elizabeth, Blunvile changes to Lady Paget.106 Where Cancellar notes he is Elizabeth’s servant and daily orator, Blunvile writes, and is now in part reviued by me (though not worthy to speak of hir vertues) being sometyme one of hir meanest Subiects. A little paines I haue taken to bring this to your Ladys eye, partly to shew my gratitude to your honor, for continuall fauours powred vpon me.107

Here, Blunvile leaves off the rest of Cancellar’s dedication and simply ends asking Lady Paget to accept his work. 99 The manuscript is unpaginated, but the dedication begins on the second page, which I will call 2r. 100 MS ENG 942, 2r. 101 Cancellar, Aiir.

102 MS ENG 942, 2v. 103 MS ENG 942, 2v.

104 This citation comes from Blunvile, 2v, but is found on Cancellar, Aiii front. 105 MS ENG 942, 2v. 106 MS ENG 942, 3r. 107 MS ENG 942, 3r.

84

84 Publishing Princess Elizabeth Following the dedication to Lady Paget, Blunvile’s offers Elizabeth’s Certaine Sentences in Latin, French, and Italian (f. 3v), Elizabeth’s translation (ff. 4r‒29v), Elizabeth’s sentences translated from Ecclesiastes (f. 30r), and an anagram on “Elizabeth Regina” (f. 31r). He even uses Cancellar’s title and only changes it to reflect that Elizabeth was now dead. Based on the re-​used dedication, the anagram, and the omission of the Certain Sentence in Greek, Blunvile’s manuscript appears to be an almost exact copy of Cancellar’s 1580 A Godly Meditation. For Elizabeth requesting her translation to remain privately in the hands of Katherine Parr to it being printed five times in the sixteenth century, it is ironic that its final edition for nearly 300  years was a handwritten manuscript copy that would have been for the private use of Lady Paget. This also means that Harvard University’s Houghton Library has singular copies of the last two versions of Elizabeth’s translation from the early modern period. Elizabeth’s text was not printed again until 1897, when Percy Ames published the first facsimile edition.108 This edition was dedicated to Queen Victoria, linking yet another queen to this text.

108 In the preface, Ames explains how this reproduction came to be, noting that the text alone is not really worth reproducing, however, “the personality of the translator and the circumstances of its production invest the manuscript with peculiar interest.” Ames, The Mirror, 3–​4.

85

CONCLUSION

In 2017, I wrote a 2,000-​word entry on manuscript dedications written by Princess

Elizabeth for Women Writers in Context, an online publication series from the Women Writers Project. More than 6,000 words later, I  realized that the topic of Elizabeth’s pre-​accession translations deserved more attention, especially the dedications that accompanied those translations as they were the actual words of the princess, not those translated by her. The manuscript grew organically based on information I was able to thread together and realized had never been connected before. The result is a detailed case study of the four extant dedications that Elizabeth Tudor wrote to accompany manuscript translations that she gave to Katherine Parr, Henry VIII, and her brother Edward as New Year’s gifts from 1545 to 1548. An analysis of these sources quickly revealed that Elizabeth’s pre-​accession dedications and translations cannot be separated from those of her sister Mary, nor can they be used to show her educational or cultural superiority over Mary. Pre-​accession printed book and manuscript dedications to Mary and Elizabeth are one small, often-​overlooked area where Mary and Elizabeth can be compared and considered for their similar experiences as daughters of Henry VIII. Both Mary and Elizabeth received the same generic praise for being virtuous, pious, illustrious, and learned, as indeed they probably were, yet, that is where the similarities end. With Mary receiving so many more dedications than Elizabeth, there was much more opportunity for dedicators to praise Mary for being excellent in birth, prominent among women, and possessing bountiful goodness. Mary was also thought to be a keeper and appreciator of holy words and impenetrable to the threat of heresy. She was considered to be more than just a typical royal lady, but prominent, a font of influence, and an important Catholic figure in the religious settlement, while Elizabeth was simply a virginal, royal lady. When it came to advice given to the princesses in their dedications, each was also approached very differently. Dedicators offered no advice to prepare young Mary for queenship, other than reminding her to maintain her virtue and be true to the Catholic faith. These dedicators indicate that she was a well-​respected daughter of a king no matter her status, she was considered to have influence at court and over readership, she had her own patronage to dispense, and that she could be a public figure for the Catholic cause. Elizabeth, as a second daughter, was even less expected to become queen, and dedicators did not give her much credit for having any influence at court or other noble women. She was not given any political counsel, indicating that she was not considered important enough to offer political counsel. Yet she was at least thought to be a sympathizer of reformed religion, and dedications accompanying religious texts encouraged her to live simply and study the word of God. These dedications given to Mary and Elizabeth would have served as Elizabeth’s own model when making her dedications to Henry, Katherine, and Edward. In them, she

86

86 Conclusion would have learned that dedications started with praise for a dedicatee, explained the choice of a text, and ended with a prayer for the dedicatee’s life and longevity. Elizabeth also would have learned that a dedication could serve a larger purpose than introducing a text. It rhetorically placed the dedicator in supplication to the dedicatee. Moreover, in a dedication Elizabeth could profess her loyalty in her own words while at the same time capture a person’s attention with her language skills. Mary undertook at least two pre-​accession translations, yet neither had a dedication from her because they did not need one. Mary’s translation of Aquinas occurred when she was eleven years old and still Henry VIII’s only living heir. It exists in a family owned, or at least family used, book that inherently proved her royal status because of the inclusion of so many signatures from the royal family. The fact that Mary’s title of princess had to later be scratched out shows that Mary never lost her association as Henry’s daughter and heir, but members of court were aware that acknowledging her as such could prove unlawful. This prayer by St. Thomas Aquinas remained so popular in Tudor England, that it was included in primers sanctioned by each Tudor monarch.1 For her translation of the Gospel of John, Mary may not have completed the entire translation or even agreed to be acknowledged as its translator, yet in Udall’s accompanying dedication to Katherine Parr, Udall praises her for her virtues and abilities as a Princess of England. Elizabeth may have been friendly with Katherine, and perhaps even daughterly, but she was not asked to be part of the translation project and instead gave translations as New Year’s gifts. Elizabeth’s translations show her incredible ability as an eleven-​, twelve-​, and fourteen-​year-​old girl, the influence of Katherine Parr over Elizabeth’s religion and learning, and the blossoming of writing and translation activities that Elizabeth continued to undertake for the rest of her life. She used her “piety and learning to advance” her “status and authority,” a strategy she continued to practice throughout her queenship.2 Importantly, Elizabeth’s gifts also connect her to the literary activities of females in her family, such as her mother and Lady Margaret Beaufort, and therefore to her dynastic connection.3 In these dedications, Elizabeth was not looking for patronage, but showing allegiance to her relatives, as her own position, demoted princess, was not always secure. Princess Elizabeth’s translations, for the most part, are described as a show of loyalty.4 However, I have taken this one step further by acknowledging that Elizabeth 1 A. I. Doyle, “A Prayer Attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas,” Dominican Studies 1 (1948): 233. 2 Pollnitz, Princely Education, 199.

3 Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess,” 48 and 48n12. Pollnitz, Princely Education, 244.

4 Aysha Pollnitz has described them as demonstrations of Elizabeth’s handwriting, language skills, and displays of her “filial loyalty, sex-​specific virtue, and personal piety.” Pollnitz, Princely Education, 244, 245. Mueller and Scodel have described them as proof of her great mastery of languages and exceptional knowledge, yet full of humility toward Katherine Parr. Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 1, 3. Anne Lake Prescott described Elizabeth’s translations as an attempt to show obedience to Katherine Parr. Prescott, “The Pearl,” 64‒65. Susan Doran suggests the translations displayed Elizabeth’s “intellectual ability, feminine skills and quick wit, and signaled her duty and

87

Conclusion

87

certainly was demonstrating her loyalty to her family, yet she was also protecting herself by projecting herself in the supplication of a family (her father specifically) that could demote her status and position as easily as he had done so when she was three. Not only did Elizabeth have to be loyal, she had to show herself to know that her position was solely dependent upon her father and brother’s goodwill, as she was the product of a union that had gone wrong. She used the dedications to directly address her family members in an appeal to permanently stay in good favor.5 Moreover, she could have witnessed or heard stories of Mary’s disobedience and how Mary was not in favor as long as she was not publicly obedient to her father. It was only once Mary signed a submission and was publicly obedient to her father that she was welcomed back to court and given her own household. Elizabeth perhaps knew of Mary’s past and made attempts to not fall out of favor by never letting her loyalty be questioned. Scholars also often suggest that Elizabeth’s translations were meant to demonstrate her piety and virtue so as to both prostrate herself to her monarch and use these assets to prove that she was a good daughter, unlike her sinful mother. However, scholars almost always take this last point and project that Elizabeth weaponized her piety as a princess and honed this skill as a queen. While she very well may have presented herself as virtuous and pious as princess and queen, she did so as a princess because those were the assets that she was expected to have. To have presented herself otherwise would have been disastrous. It is also dangerous to look backwards at Elizabeth’s actions as an eleven-​or twelve-​year-​old girl to predict how she acted as a queen. Yes, her childhood would have formed her adulthood, but not every one of her pen strokes determined the type of queen she would be, especially one who came to stand for virginity and chastity. Like so many others, Frye concludes that Elizabeth’s manuscripts with needlework covers expressed her dynastic identity, being feminine and acceptable, yet also confirmation of her abilities and potential.6 True, translating was an acceptable feminine task, her dedications are more than just feminine letters. They are examples of a demoted princess seeking the patronage and protection of her stepmother, father, and brother, in the same way that a typical dedicator addressed a dedicatee when desiring patronage. Yet, Elizabeth was not seeking monetary patronage, or even approval of her translations, but was seeking protection and acknowledgement, while expressing her desire not to be demoted again. Elizabeth’s strategy of gift-​giving—​offering elaborate, handcrafted, devotion to the new queen-​consort and by extension the king.” Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 18. Brenda M. Hosington suggests that Elizabeth’s translation to Edward was done “to make her loyalty to him clear.” Hosington, “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations,” 128. Susan James describes Elizabeth’s translation to Katherine Parr as “not mere courtesy gifts,” noting that Elizabeth “had found a champion in her new mother.” James, Catherine Parr, 114. Percy W. Ames describes Elizabeth’s first translation to Katherine as “an offering of grateful affection.” Ames, The Mirror, 14. 5 Doran, Queen Elizabeth, 18. Brenda Hosington similarly describes Elizabeth’s Latin letters to Edward as a “strategy of self-​preservation.” Hosington, “The Young Princess Elizabeth,” 19.

6 Susan Frye, Pens and Needles: Women’s Textualities in Early Modern England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 31.

88

88 Conclusion acceptable feminine translations—​demonstrated her knowledge of what would capture attention, yet were capable or interacting with religious discourse and decision making.7 Even though information about New Year’s gifts that the Tudor royal family exchanged between 1533 and 1553 is not complete, it is not difficult to gauge how Elizabeth’s manuscript translation gifts fit in. From the surviving evidence of King Henry’s gifts to his daughters, particularly Mary, he gave them gifts of gold and jewelry, appropriate gifts for their status as daughters of the king, even though bastardized. As for the known gifts from Katherine Parr, she, too, gave Mary jewelry, as even the book she gave Mary was covered in rubies, so it was probably a small girdle book, not one meant to be read and learned from. Like other members of Henry’s court, Mary used her wealth to show her loyalty to her monarch, giving expensive gifts of gilt and plate. Yet, it is the gifts from Elizabeth to her sister that are most telling of her intentions with the translations and dedications to Henry, Katherine, and Edward. Elizabeth gave her sister a chain, silk hose, and a braser (meant to adorn clothing). None of Elizabeth’s gifts to Mary were made with her own hands, as she did not need to court the goodwill and benevolence of her sister. It is also interesting that during Mary’s reign Elizabeth was often not in favor and even spent time at the Tower and under house arrest for suspected treason, yet she did not give any gifts of translations to Mary. It is possible that she could have and with missing New Year’s gift rolls for Mary’s reign the translations are no longer possible to trace and may no longer be extant. It is also possible that Elizabeth did give Mary a dedicated translation and Mary did not value it enough to keep it. But, it is unusual that Elizabeth’s preferred method of showing loyalty to her father, stepmother, and brother was not used to show loyalty to Mary. Perhaps she knew that Mary would not trust her no matter the gift, so she just did not put in the effort to give her one. Yet, little of Elizabeth’s own writing has survived from 1553‒1558 at all, so Elizabeth may have decided to be more low key with writing so that things she wrote could not be used against her (a lesson that Mary, Queen of Scots should have learned).8 Elizabeth probably did not dedicate a manuscript to Mary because it would not have been the type of gift that Mary would have responded to based on their issues over religion. If Elizabeth gave her a book, it would have needed to be one on Catholic theology. Elizabeth may have been better off giving her a rosary or something with Catholic symbolism. As their relationship declined during Mary’s reign, a book would not have been enough to salvage it. Literally, actions would have been louder than words, and her actions at that time were only to sporadically attend mass.9 Yet, Elizabeth’s gifts to Henry, Katherine, and Edward were much more personalized, thereby having a more intimate purpose. For these translations, Elizabeth used a four-​ fold program to appeal to Henry, Katherine, and Edward. The first step was exhibiting 7 Frye, “Elizabeth When a Princess,” 48. 8 Richards, Elizabeth I, 26.

9 For a discussion of Mary and Elizabeth’s sibling relationship, see Carole Levin, “Sister-​Subject/​ Sister-​Queen: Elizabeth I among her Siblings,” in Sibling Relations and Gender in the Early Modern World, ed. Naomi J. Miller and Naomi Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2006), 77‒88.

89

Conclusion

89

her skills through a translation. The second part was offering a personal dedication. The third step was binding her translation and dedication in an embroidered cover. And, the final step was giving her bound book as a New Year’s gift, which meant that the recipient had to acknowledge its existence and give Elizabeth something in return. All of this shows that Elizabeth strategically gave personal and personalized gifts that would serve as long-​term reminders of Elizabeth, her semi-​royal position, her academic aptitude, and her marriage potential. No matter why they undertook their translations, both Mary and Elizabeth had one of their translations printed in 1548. Elizabeth’s translation of Marguerite de Navarre’s Le Miroir de l’âme pécheresse was obtained by John Bale and printed in April 1548 and again in four more editions over the course of the second half of the sixteenth century. I have already argued that Elizabeth translated and dedicated The Glass to Katherine Parr in order to show her filial loyalty, as well as reinforce her position as the king’s younger daughter so as not to be demoted from the royal family again. With the five printed editions of Elizabeth’s translation came three new dedications to Elizabeth and the complete removal of Katherine Parr from the text. dedicators, in a fashion similar to Elizabeth, added their own These editor-​ dedications to show their own loyalty and desire for patronage, but for each of them the text held a particular meaning. Thomas Bentley contributed to Elizabeth’s image as perpetual Virgin. John Bale used Elizabeth’s translation to support furthering reform in England. James Cancellar presumably gave his dedication and a reissue of Elizabeth’s book to Elizabeth to show her loyalty, as he had a rocky past with Bale, someone who did have Elizabeth’s patronage. Yet, Cancellar uses language that was previously used to describe Mary and a translation that she completed at the same time in which Elizabeth completed her translation of The Glass. While he probably was not bold enough to mean for this text and its use of Marian language to support Mary Queen of Scots over Elizabeth, or even a return to Catholicism, he did cut out the reformist overtones that were first added in for Mary (Tudor) in an attempt to use her name to further English-​ language Scriptural translations. This goes to show that the translations of Elizabeth and Mary always remained closely intertwined throughout the course of the sixteenth century, which is a fact that modern scholarship has tended to downplay in an effort to show the singularity and providentiality of Elizabeth. When it is noted that Elizabeth never registered any objections to any printed editions of her translation, it is assumed that means she approved of them as they contributed to the pious and learned image that she desired for herself.10 Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that Elizabeth (or her council) was unaware of Cancellar’s re-​use of Udall’s dedication. This means that Elizabeth did not object to a permanent linking of her and her sister and both of their intellectual abilities. Moreover, if Paraphrases was commanded to be in every parish, and records indicate that it was in many during the course of the reigns of the last three Tudors, then presumably it was read on a large scale. 10 Mueller and Scodel, Translations, 38.

90

90 Conclusion If so, then readers who picked up a copy of Cancellar’s editions of Elizabeth’s translation could also have matched Cancellar’s dedication with Udall’s, linking Elizabeth and Mary for themselves. For Bale, what was impressive and singular was not the fact that Elizabeth could translate, it was the fact that she did so at a young age. Cancellar’s dedication appears to echo the same sentiment. However, when read alongside Udall’s dedication to Katherine Parr, from which Cancellar repeated near verbatim Udall’s praise of Mary, it becomes clear that Elizabeth was not so singular as praises that were steeped on her were first used for Mary, both implicitly and explicitly linking the sisters and their translations in perpetuity.

91

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS Add. C.92 Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS Bodl. 6 Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, MS Cherry 36 British Library, Additional MS 12192 British Library, Additional MS 17012 British Library, C.12.d.1 British Library, C.37.e.23 British Library, C.38.c.57 British Library, G. 12001 British Library, Harley MS 1860 British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. F xiii British Library, Royal MS 7.D.X British Library, Royal MS 12 A XXV British Library, Royal MS 16 E XXVIII British Library, Royal MS 17 A.XLVI British Library, Royal MS 17 A.XXX British Library, Royal MS 17 B.XXVIII British Library, Royal MS 17 C.XII British Library, Royal MS 17 C.XVI British Library, Royal MS 18 A. XV Edinburgh National Archives of Scotland, MS RH 13/​78 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC, Folger MS Z.d.II Harvard University, Houghton Library, MS ENG 942

Ames, Percy W., ed. The Mirror of the Sinful Soul: A Prose Translation from the French of a Poem by Queen Margaret of Navarre, Made in 1544 by the Princess (Afterwards Queen) Elizabeth, Then Eleven Years of Age. London: Asher, 1897. Borde, Andrew. The First Boke of the Introduction of Knowledge. London: William Copland, 1555. STC 3383. Bush, Paule. Here begynneth a lytell treatyse in Englysshe, called the extripacion of ignorancy: and it treateth and speketh of the ignorance of people, shewyng them howe they are bounde to feare god, to loue god, and to honour their prince. London: Richar Pynson, 1526. STC 4186. Duwes, Giles. An introductory for to lerne to rede, to pronounce, and to speake Frenche trewly, compiled for the right high, excellent, and most vertuous lady, the lady Mary of Englande, doughter to our most gracious souerayn lorde kyng Henry the eight. London: Thomas Godfray, 1533?. STC 7377. Edward VI. Literary Remains of King Edward VI, edited by John Gough Nichols, 2 vols. London: Nichols, 1857.

92

92 Select Bibliography Elizabeth I. Elizabeth I: Autograph Compositions and Foreign Language Originals, edited by Janel Mueller and Leah S. Marcus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. —​—​. Elizabeth I: Collected Works, edited by Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the newe testament. London: Edward Whitchurch (January 31, 1548). STC 2854. Lawson, Jane, ed. The Elizabethan New Year’s Gift Exchanges, 1559–​1603. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, edited by J. S. Brewer, James Gairdner, and R.  H. Brodie, 23 volumes in 38. London:  His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1862–​1932. Linacre, Thomas. Rudimenta grammatices Thomae Linacri diligenter castigate denuo. London: Richard Pynson, 1525?. STC 15636. Madden, Frederic. Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, Daughter of King Henry the Eighth, Afterwards Queen Mary: With a Memoir of the Princess, and Notes. London: William Pickering, 1831. Marguerite of Navarre. A Godlie Meditation of the Christian Soule: concerning a loue towards God and his Church, Compiled in French by Ladie Margaret, Queene of Nauar, and aptly translated into English by our most gratious soueraign, Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene of Englande, Fraunce, and Irelande. London: Ward, 1590. —​—​.  A Godly Meditation of the inwarde loue of the Soule. Denham, 1568, STC 17320.5. —​—​. A Godly Meditation of the Soule, concerning a loue towards Christ, Our Lorde, aptely translated out of French into Englishe by the right highe, and most vertuous Princesse Elizabeth by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, &c. Whervnto is added godlye Meditations, set forth after the Alphabet of the Queenes Maiesties name, compiled by James Canceller. London: H. Denham, 1580? STC 17321. —​—​. A godly medytacyon of the christen sowle, concerning a loue towards God and hys Christe, compyled in frenche by Lady Margarete quene of Nauerre, and aptely translated into Englysh by the rught vertuouse lady Elyzabeth doughter to our late souerayne Kynge henri the viij, compiled by John Bale. Wesel: Dirik van der Straten, 1548. STC 17320. May, Steven, ed. Queen Elizabeth, I: Selected Works. New York: Washington Square, 2004. The Monvment of Matrones: conteining Seuen seuerall Lamps of Virginitie, or distinct treatises, compiled by Thomas Bentley. London: Denham. STC 1892. Parr, Katherine. Complete Works & Correspondence, edited by Janel Mueller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Paynell, Thomas. The piththy and moost notable sayinges of al scripture, gathered by Thomas Paynell: after the manner of common places, very necessary for al those that delite in the consolacions of the scriptures. London: Thomas Gaultier at the expense of Robert Toye, 1550. STC 19494. Proctor, John. The fal of the late Arrian. London: William Powell, 1549. STC 20406. Strangford, Viscount, ed. Household Expenses of the Princess Elizabeth During her Residence at Hatfield, October 1, 1551 to September 30, 1552. London: Nichols, 1853. Sturm, Johannes. Libri duo Ioannis Sturmii de periodis unus. Dionysii Halicarnassaei de collocatione verborum alter. Strasbourg, 1550. Vives, Juan Luis. Introductio ad sapientiam; Satellitium sive Symbola; Epistolae duae de Ratione Studii Puerilis. Louvain: Peter Martens, 1524.

93

Select Bibliography

93

Secondary Sources: Belle, Marie-​ Alice, and Brenda M. Hosington, eds. Thresholds of Translation: Paratexts, Print, and Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Britain (1473–​1660). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Carley, James P. The Books of King Henry VIII and his Wives. London: British Library, 2004. Collinson, Patrick. Elizabethan Essays. London: Hambledon, 1994. Dearnley, Elizabeth. Translators and their Prologues in Medieval England. Cambridge: Brewer, 2016. Doran, Susan. Queen Elizabeth I. New York: New York University Press, 2003. Dowling, Maria. Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII. Kent: Croom Helm, 1986. Ellis, Roger. “The Juvenile Translations of Elizabeth Tudor.” Translation and Literature 18, no. 2 (Autumn 2009): 157–​80. Frye, Susan. “Elizabeth When a Princess: Early Self-​Representations in a Portrait and a Letter,” in The Body of the Queen: Gender and Rule in the Courtly World, 1500–​2000, edited by Regina Schulte. New York: Berghahn, 2006. Goodrich, Jaime. Faithful Translators: Authorship, Gender, and Religion in Early Modern England. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2014. —​—​—.​ “Mary Tudor, Lord Morley, and St. Thomas Aquinas: The Politics of Pious Translation at the Henrician Court.” ANQ 24, no. 1–​2 (2011), 11–​20. Hayward, M. A. “Gift Giving at the Court of Henry VIII: The 1539 New Year’s Gift Roll in Context.” Antiquaries Journal 85 (2005): 125–​75. Heal, Felicity. The Power of Gifts: Gift-​Exchange in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Hosington, Brenda M. “Tudor Englishwomen’s Translations of Continental Protestant Texts: The Interplay of Ideology and Historical Context.” In Tudor Translation, edited by Fred Schurink, 121–​42. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. King, John N.  “Patronage and Piety:  The Influence of Catherine Parr.” In Silent But for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works, edited by Margaret P. Hannay, 43–​60. Kent: Kent State University Press, 1985. Lawson, Jane A. “This Remembrance of the New Year: Books Given to Queen Elizabeth as New Year’s Gifts.” In Elizabeth I and the Culture of Writing, edited by Peter Beal and Grace Ioppolo, 133–​71. London: British Library, 2007. Levin, Carole. “Queen Elizabeth and the Power and Language of the Gift.” In Elizabeth I in Writing: Language, Power and Representation in Early Modern England, edited by Donatella Montini and Iolanda Plescia, 213–​32. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. —​—​. The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. 2nd edition. Mattingly, Garrett. Catherine of Aragon. New York: Little, Brown, 1941. Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth. London: Jonathan Cape, 1934, reprinted London: Penguin, 1988. Pohl, Benjamin, and Leah Tether. “Books Fit for a King: The Presentation Copies of Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi (London, British Library, Royal MS 8 B. vii) and Johannes Sturm’s De periodis (Cambridge, Trinity College, II. 12.21 and London, British Library, C.24.e.5).” Electronic British Library Journal (2015), article 7, 1‒35. Pollnitz, Aysha. Princely Education in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

94

94 Select Bibliography Prescott, Anne Lake. “The Pearl of the Valois and Elizabeth I: Marguerite de Navarre’s Miroir and Tudor England.” In Silent But for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works, edited by Margaret P.  Hannay, 61–​76. Kent:  Kent State University Press, 1985. Quilligan, Maureen. Incest and Agency in Elizabeth’s England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. Richards, Judith M. Elizabeth I. Oxon: Routledge, 2012. Schutte, Valerie. Mary I and the Art of Book Dedications. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. —​—​. “Perceptions of Sister Queens: A Comparison of Printed Book Dedications to Mary and Elizabeth Tudor.” Sederi Yearbook 27 (2017): 149–​66. —​—​. “Under the Influence: The Impact of Queenly Book Dedications on Princess Mary.” In The Birth of a Queen: Essays on the Quincentenary of Mary I, edited by Sarah Duncan and Valerie Schutte, 31–​48. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Schutte, Valerie, ed. Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Shell, Marc. Elizabeth’s Glass. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. Smith, Helen. “Grossly Material Things”: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Smith, Rosalind. “Paratextual Economies in Tudor Women’s Translations: Margaret More Roper, Mary Roper Basset and Mary Tudor.” In Trust and Proof: Translators in Renaissance Print Culture, edited by Andrea Rizzi, 185–​208. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Starkey, David. Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne. London: Chatto and Windus, 2000. Swain, Margaret H. “A New Year’s Gift from the Princess Elizabeth.” The Connoisseur (August 1973): 258–​66. Whitelock, Anna. Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen. New York: Random House, 2009.

95

INDEX

Á Lasco, John, 15 Anne of Cleves, 39, 57 antiquity, 37, 40, 41 Aquinas, St. Thomas, 23–​27, 86 Ascham, Roger, 18–​19, 20 Askew, Anne, 64, 68, 70, 71, 79

Bale, John, 16, 20, 24, 27, 37, 44, 63, 72–​74, 77–​79, 81, 89–​90 Basset, Mary Roper Clark, 21 Beaufort, Lady Margaret, 36, 69–​70, 86 Belmain, Jean, 15–​16, 20, 40–​41 translator, 15–​16 tutor, 15, 18, 36, 38, 42 Bentley, Thomas, 64, 78–​81, 89 Blunville, Thomas, 82–​84 Boleyn, Anne, 4, 9–​10, 17–​18, 36, 39–​39, 42–​43, 54, 60, 71, 86–​87 book dedications, 1–​2, 6, 9–​22, 35–​51, 64–​65, 68, 73–​74, 78, 81, 85 Borde, Andrew, 21–​22 Buckler, Walter, 54 Buckley, William, 12, 21 Bullinger, Heinrich, 15 Bush, Paul, 12

Calvin, John, 15–​16, 40–​42 Cancellar, James, 64, 72–​80, 83–​84, 89–​90 Catherine of Aragon, 6, 9–​10, 12, 17, 23–​26, 28, 54, 60 Catholic, 12, 33, 76–​77, 85, 88 Catholicism, 27, 28, 69, 77–​78, 89 support for Mary, 10 Cecil, William, 79 Chapuys, Eustace, 54, 58 Cheke, John, 46

Colas, Hierome, 14 Cooke, Anne, 48 Cooke, Sir Anthony, 48 Cranmer, Thomas, 12, 46

Dawson, Thomas, 79 Denham, Henry, 78, 79 Douglas, Lady Margaret, 44, 59 Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 78 Duwes, Giles, 17–​18, 20

Edward VI, King of England, 2, 4, 11, 15, 28, 31, 32, 36–​37, 44, 53, 63–​64, 66, 68, 70–​72, 87 dedications, 1, 6, 9–​10, 14, 16, 19, 30, 46–​50, 77, 85 education, 17, 18, 38 gifts, 48–​49, 54–​55, 57, 59–​60, 85, 88 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 29, 33–​34, 55–​62, 64–​84 dedications, 1–​3, 6, 9, 11–​12, 14–​21, 35–​51, 53–​54, 85–​87, 89 education, 1, 3–​5, 9, 16, 20, 35, 36, 38 embroidery, 36, 42–​43, 46, 56, 87, 89 loyalty, 2, 6, 27, 38, 42, 44, 50, 56, 64, 72, 78, 86–​89 piety, 15, 19, 70, 87 as Princess of Wales, 18 reputation, 1, 4 translations, 1, 2–​7, 23, 25, 27, 31, 35–​51, 63–​64, 70, 73, 85, 86, 88–​90 use of name for reform, 15–​16, 24, 63, 68–​70, 72, 74, 89 virginity, 76, 80, 89 virtue, 15, 87 Elizabeth of York, 23–​26 Erasmus, Desiderius, 6, 27–​33, 34, 50

96

96

Index

Fitzroy, Mary, Duchess of Richmond, 65, 67–​69, 71 Foxe, John, 64

The Glass of the Sinful Soul, 6, 27, 36, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 75, 79, 81, 89

Hampton Court Palace, 34, 36, 40, 59 Henry VII, King of England, 17, 21, 23, 26 Henry VIII, King of England, 2–​7, 7, 9–​11, 15–​16, 21, 24–​26, 28, 32–​34, 36–​41, 47–​48, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 77, 81, 86–​87 dedications, 1, 6, 17, 18, 22, 29, 42–​46, 50, 78, 85, 88–​89 gifts, 6, 23, 27, 51, 53–​56, 58–​59, 61–​62, 72, 85, 88–​89 Howard, Katherine, 42, 58 James I, King of England, 50 Linacre, Thomas, 17 Luther, Martin, 14–​15 Lynne, Walter, 14–​15

Mallet, Francis, 27, 29, 32 Marguerite of Navarre, 2, 16, 36, 39, 65, 69, 73–​74, 78, 79, 81, 83 Le Miroir de l’ame pécheresse, 6, 36, 39, 51, 63, 89 Mary, Queen of Scots, 73, 77, 78, 88, 89 Mary I, Queen of England, 2, 5, 16, 36, 37–​38, 42, 44, 46–​47, 49, 53–​61, 72, 79, 85, 87–​89 dedications, 6, 9–​14, 16–​18, 20–​22, 77, 85 education, 9–​10, 16, 20 Gospel of John, 6, 24–​33, 64, 74–​76, 86 heir, 4, 9, 10, 17, 18, 27, 32–​33, 71, 86 piety, 13, 31 as Princess of Wales, 17–​18, 25 relationship with Henry VIII, 4, 7 reputation, 1, 4, 5–​6 translations, 1, 6, 23–​33, 37, 86, 89–​90 virtue, 10, 12, 31 More, Thomas, 21, 28

New Year’s, 1, 5–​6, 13, 16, 23, 26, 33–​36, 40, 42, 44, 46–​49, 51, 53–​63, 67, 72, 85–​86, 88–​89 Ochino, Bernardino, 46–​49

Paget, Lady Katherine, 82–​84 Paraphrases on the New Testament, 6, 27–​34, 37, 89 Parker, Henry, Lord Morley, 11, 13, 20–​21, 26 Parr, Katherine, 2, 7, 44, 46–​48, 58, 62, 64, 66–​68, 70–​71, 73–​74, 84, 87 dedications, 1, 6, 11, 15–​16, 36–​43, 45, 50, 63, 65, 74–​76, 78, 79, 85–​86, 88–​90 gifts, 23, 33, 51, 53–​54, 56, 59, 61, 67, 72, 85, 88–​89 influence over Elizabeth, 3, 4, 37–​38, 40, 42, 86 influence over Mary, 3–​4, 6, 37–​38 Lamentation of a Sinner, 16, 67 marriage to Henry VIII, 3, 37–​38 Paraphrases on the New Testament, 27–​34 Prayers or Meditations, 42, 45, 50 regency, 33–​34, 68 patronage, 2, 9–​14, 19–​22, 37, 47, 85, 86–​87, 89 Paynell, Thomas, 13, 20 Ponet, John, 47 Proctor, John, 12 queenship, 43, 71–​74, 80, 85, 86 Regius, Urbanus, 14–​15

Seymour Affair, 4, 15 Seymour, Anne, Duchess of Somerset, 14 Seymour, Edward, Duke of Somerset, 48 Seymour, Jane, 56 Seymour, Thomas, 4, 5 Sturm, Johann, 18–​20

97



Udall, Nicholas, 28, 30–​33, 74–​77, 83, 86, 89, 90 Virgin Mary, 12–​14, 17, 21 Vives, Juan Luis, 17, 20, 28

Index

Ward, Roger, 81–​82 Wotton, Mary, Lady Guildford, 23 Wyatt’s Rebellion, 4, 77

97

98