Print Letters in Seventeenth‐Century England: Politics, Religion, and News Culture [1° ed.] 1138309575, 9781138309579

Citation preview

Print Letters in SeventeenthCentury England

Print Letters in Seventeenth-Century England investigates how and why letters were printed in the interrelated spheres of political contestation, religious controversy, and news culture—those published as pamphlets, as broadsides, and in newsbooks in the interests of ideological disputes and as political and religious propaganda. The epistolary texts examined in this book, be they fictional, satirical, collected, or authentic, were written for, or framed to have, a specific persuasive purpose, typically an ideological or propagandistic one. This volume offers a unique exploration into the crucial interface of manuscript culture and print culture where tremendous transformations occur, when, for instance, at its most basic level, a handwritten letter composed by a single individual and meant for another individual alone comes, either intentionally or not, into the purview of hundreds or even thousands of people. This essential context, a solitary exchange transmuted via print into an interaction consumed by many, serves to highlight the manner in which letters were exploited as propaganda and operated as vehicles of cultural narrative. Gary Schneider is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Literatures and Cultural Studies at the University of Texas—Rio Grande Valley in Edinburg, Texas. He earned his PhD in English from Wayne State University in 2001 and has published a number of articles and book chapters on early modern letters and letter writing as well as a monograph titled The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England, 1500–1700 (2005).

Material Readings in Early Modern Culture Series editor: James Daybell Plymouth University, UK,

Adam Smyth

Balliol College, University of Oxford, UK

The series provides a forum for studies that consider the material forms of texts as part of an investigation into the culture of early modern ­England. The editors invite proposals of a multi- or interdisciplinary ­nature, and particularly welcome proposals that combine archival research with an attention to theoretical models that might illuminate the reading, writing, and making of texts, as well as projects that take ­innovative approaches to the study of material texts, both in terms of the kinds of primary materials under investigation, and in terms of methodologies. What are the questions that have yet to be asked about writing in its various possible embodied forms? Are there varieties of materiality that are critically neglected? How does form mediate and negotiate c­ ontent? In what ways do the physical features of texts inform how they are read, interpreted, and situated? Recent in this series: Ovidian Bibliofictions and the Tudor Book Metamorphosing Classical Heroines in Late Medieval and Renaissance England Lindsay Ann Reid Manuscript Miscellanies in Early Modern England Edited by Joshua Eckhardt and Daniel Starza Smith Tottel’s Songes and Sonettes in Context Edited by Stephen Hamrick The Elizabethan Top Ten Defining Print Popularity in Early Modern England Edited by Andy Kesson and Emma Smith Print Letters in Seventeenth-Century England Politics, Religion, and News Culture Gary Schneider

Print Letters in Seventeenth-Century England Politics, Religion, and News Culture Gary Schneider

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Gary Schneider to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP data has been applied for. ISBN: 978-1-138-30957-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-14366-8 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra

For Maddie

Contents

Acknowledgments Notes on the Text

ix xi

Introduction 1 1 Epistolary Fiction in Pamphlet, Broadside, and Newsbook Publication 14 2 Epistolary Satire in Pamphlet, Broadside, and Newsbook Publication 85 3 Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections 150 4 Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters 192 Index

267

Acknowledgments

I owe thanks, first, to my readers at Routledge, who helped me shape and improve the manuscript. I also wish to thank Michelle Salyga, Tim Swenarton, Assunta Petrone, and everyone else at Routledge for helping me bring this book into print. To those who have supported my research and career, in particular Diana Barnes, James Daybell, Andrew Gordon, and Alan Stewart, I offer my gratitude. I am grateful also to my institution, University of Texas—Rio Grande Valley, for generously supporting me with two research travel grants. Renaissance Studies kindly permitted me to reprint in Chapter 3 material originally published as ­“Royalist Approaches to the Civil War and Commonwealth in Familiar Letter Collections” 24.4 (Sept. 2009): 559–74. Finally, thanks, as always, to my family for their unending support: my wife, Kyoung Lee, and my daughter, to whom I dedicate this book.

Notes on the Text

I include A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave or Donald Wing English Short Title Catalogue (ESTC) numbers directly after the date of the publication; if the publication was printed before 1641, the reference is to Pollard and Redgrave’s Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland and English Books Printed Abroad 1473–1640; if it was printed after 1640 to Wing’s Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland, Wales and British America and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 1641–1700, 2nd edition. I accessed these through the ESTC database at the British Library. The few texts I assess printed after 1700 are also referenced by the electronic ESTC at the British Library by their ESTC citation numbers. For brevity’s sake I cite in text in parentheses only the ESTC number(s) of the earliest edition of a given publication, which are usually editions printed in London; place of publication of any early modern text I cite is therefore London unless otherwise indicated. I cite early modern texts by page number whenever possible; otherwise, I give leaf signatures (recto is inferred)—including implied page numbers and signatures, which I give in brackets—placing page and signature references in my text whenever possible; if the early modern publication is in broadsheet, I identify recto and verso. If an early modern text has multiple impressions of a first edition, I give inclusive ESTC number citations—for example, Vox Coeli, or Newes from Heaven … Whereunto Is Annexed Two Letters Written by Queene Mary from Heaven, the One to Count Gondomar … the Other to All the Romane Catholiques of England (1624 / 20946.4–8) includes Wing 20946.4, 20946.5, 20946.6, 20946.7, and 20946.8, all from 1624. If there are many or if additional ESTC numbers are relevant, I reserve these for the notes. When I quote from an early modern English printed work that has multiple impressions, I indicate from which I quote in the notes. I give the publication month and date of a given pamphlet or broadsheet in parentheses if it is included on the imprint or if George Thomason inscribed his date of acquisition on his copy; I indicate Thomason’s dating with a superscript T. Other determinations of date are given in the notes. For newsbook and newssheet references, the format I employ is title,

xii  Notes on the Text issue number, (inclusive) date(s), Thomason catalogue number, page(s) or signature(s)—for example, Perfect Diurnall, 7, July 25–Aug. 5, 1642 (E.202[28]), 8 (I use N/A if issue number or date is absent). For spellings of names, wherever possible I follow David Cannadine, gen. ed., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 60 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)—abbreviated as ODNB throughout. I change “u” to “v,” “i” to “j,” and “vv” to “w” in all early modern sources I quote (but not in modern editions or when early modern sources are quoted in modern scholarship). Punctuation in long titles of early modern books is tidied up and I normalize italics in all primary sources; I also extend printed contractions and silently correct non-­substantive printing errors. I have adjusted Lady Day dating and assume the year began on January 1.

Introduction

This book is of course about letters—but it is also about stories. More precisely, it is about stories that occur in letters and stories told through exchanges of letters. A letter writer may report news, recount current events, narrate family affairs, relate gossip, and so on. When a correspondent responds to the news, current events, family affairs, or gossip recounted in the initial communication, the exchange of letters develops these narratives. Perhaps the most familiar form of this sort of generation of narrative is the epistolary novel, whose narrative is constructed through multiple letters. Of course, one’s account of news, current events, or gossip may be accompanied by opinion and judgment that can be colored by one’s beliefs, attitudes, or principles—in short, by one’s ideology. Indeed, where epistolarity and ideology converge constitutes the principal conceptual context of this study. Epistolary discourse and the processes of letter exchange are also manifested in letters in print, including those exploited throughout the seventeenth century for persuasive, controversial, and propagandistic purposes. My topic is an investigation of how and why epistolarity was engaged in print in the interrelated spheres of political contestation, religious conflict, and news culture during the seventeenth century. In each chapter that comprises this book I examine a specific subset of letters, those expressly published to engage ideological disputes, and as political and religious propaganda. I examine first straightforward fictional letters, letters printed anonymously, pseudonymously, or in the names of others—usually famous (or infamous) individuals. I next take a look at epistolary satires, also fictional, that ventriloquize well-known individuals. Investigation of the small number of letter collections printed by living English letter writers follows, while an exploration of the political and religious uses to which genuine intercepted, captured, and discovered letters were put concludes the study. All of these epistolary texts— fictional, satirical, authentic, or printed en masse—were written for, or framed to have, a specific persuasive purpose, typically an ideological or propagandistic one. By limiting this study to the seventeenth century, I do not wish to suggest that fictional, satirical, collected, or intercepted letters were not

2  Introduction printed during the prior century—they were, indeed, but the number of such sorts of letters was considerably fewer. William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, for instance, was among the first to write and systematically publish epistolary fictions for political and religious purposes, taking the role of a Protestant clergyman in Salutem in Christo (1571) and as a Catholic layman in The Copie of a Letter Sent Out of England to Don Bernardin Mendoza (1588 / 15412, 15413, 15413.5).1 Balladeer Steven Peele mocks Pope Pius V, writing a verse epistle in his name, in the satirical The Pope in His Fury Doth Answer Returne, to a Letter ye Which to Rome Is Late Come (London?, 1571 / 19550). Three Proper and Wittie Familiar Letters and Two Other Very Commendable Letters (1580 / 23095) together constitute a small collection of letters exchanged by Edmund Spenser and Gabriel Harvey, while A Discoverie of the Unnaturall and Traiterous Conspiracie of Scottisch Papists … Wherunto Are Annexed Certaine Intercepted Letters Written by Sundrie of That Factioun (Edinburgh, 1593 / 14937; London, 1593 / 14938) contains genuine intercepted letters. However, it was not until the seventeenth century—in particular after 1640—when these sorts of letters were printed frequently enough to allow one to detect patterns, determine affinities, identify reconfigurations, and distinguish anomalies. Because so many of the print letters I investigate were entrenched within specific cultural moments, some of them so deeply enmeshed in these moments that day-to-day reaction to shifting social or political circumstances can be charted, a comprehensive argument about how the epistolary material printed in pamphlets, broadsides, and newsbooks responded to these circumstances is difficult to render. The print letters I analyze often exemplify unique reactions to specific individuals and particular events, whose authors and compilers seize on these individuals and events to posit an ideological perspective or advance a propagandistic agenda. However, all the printed texts I examine belong to the same genre; therefore, many of them engaged social and political circumstances in similar ways, generically speaking. Because letters were understood as standard conveyors of news and information, because they were ­recognized as vehicles of story, various cultural narratives were expressed in and transmitted by way of letters. By cultural narrative I mean the constellation of news, rumor, history, and collective imagination at a particular point in time as energized by and reflected in oral exchange, handwritten texts, and print media. 2 Intentionally broad, the term is meant to describe stories that were purveyed at a specific time, invigorated by current events; yet these stories often drew on how recent or past history informed perceptions of current events. Rather than inventing an original story and characters—as authors of epistolary novels characteristically did—writers of pamphlet, broadside, and newsbook epistolary fiction invented letters around actual circumstances

Introduction  3 and devised fake letters from real individuals; in other words, the letters themselves were fictions, although the people and events that inspired them were frequently real. Once within a story, a given cultural narrative, authors of such epistolary fiction, be it straightforward or s­ atirical, created circumstances of composition, transmission, reception, and sometimes interception and discovery in order to engineer their persuasive ends, whether it be to characterize their adversaries as suspicious and dangerous or else to depict their victims as ridiculous and laughable. At the same time, letter writers preparing large collections of letters not only reflected various cultural narratives in their letters but also forged their own narratives by virtue of the sheer number of letters forming the collections, while prefaces, annotations, commentaries, and c­ onclusions were added to authentic intercepted, discovered, and captured letters to share in particular cultural narratives. Some letters in print responded pointedly to a specific social or political circumstance; others reiterated long-standing narratives. In other words, some print letters reflected day-to-day occurrences while others reflected beliefs of longue durée— although these two categories were by no means mutually exclusive. The Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere in Ireland the Third of October 1641 to Old Father Philips (1641 / T2053-A), for instance, reflects events concentrated in “microhistory,” where the fake letter as if exchanged between the individuals of the pamphlet’s title was printed soon after news of the Irish Rebellion reached England, and indicts the Catholic John Stewart, 1st Earl of Traquair; and Robert Philip, Queen Henrietta Maria’s confessor, as cohorts who had planned the rebellion. Yet the pamphlet also engages broader narratives about plotting ­Catholics long in the collective Protestant consciousness. On the other hand, A Letter from the Devil to the Pope and His Prelates Written at the Beginning of the Reformation, and Now Published for the Confirmation of Protestants and Confusion of Papists (London?, 1670 / L1517) exemplifies a situation in “macrohistory,” as the pamphlet participates in general antipapal satire and forwards an established narrative about the nefarious character of the pope that were as old as the beginning of the Reformation (when Leo X was pope) to condemn Clement X in 1670; indeed, this pamphlet is largely a reprinting of a 1642 pamphlet, An Epistle Written from Lucifer … unto … the Persecuting Popish Prelats (F2089), published when a yet different pope (Urban VIII) resided in Rome—whatever pope occupied the Vatican was immaterial to this particular narrative. Cultural narratives took many forms and, as far as the determinations of history go, may be true, false, or somewhere in between. A cultural narrative may be untrue—such as the 1688 sham prince warming pan story (that a child not of King James II and Queen Mary of Modena’s issue was substituted as a legitimate heir). It may have a dimension of truth—that Charles I was misled by bad counsel. Or it may have been

4  Introduction patently observable—that King Louis XIV of France sought a universal monarchy. Other cultural narratives that occur in and are developed by some of the letters I examine in this book include stories of gunpowder plots, of Catholic queens, of Jesuit treachery, of foreign invasion, of anti-Christs (popes), of dissolute cavaliers, and of parliamentary greed. Yet other stories were tied to specific individuals such as the narrative of King Charles I’s uxoriousness (and its corollary, Queen Henrietta ­Maria’s domination of the king), King James II’s lack of masculinity, Titus Oates’s irreligiousness, and John Suckling’s cowardice. About such stories circulating around oneself, Roger L’Estrange, journalist and apologist for Charles II, is made to lament in a letter written in his name by a Whig propagandist, “people I see will speak their minds, and I cannot help it, I am forced now to endure all.”3 Print letters were frequently the ways and means by which many cultural narratives were given expression. What I am calling cultural narrative has been outlined by Thomas Beebee, who explains how it functions in epistolary fiction: “The letter allies itself with a form of fiction which does not depend upon traditional notions of storytelling, but instead takes the path of gossip, information, and news.”4 Many of the print letters I examine would therefore seem to have required readers cognizant of news, rumor, and recent events, while fictional letters as if by living individuals would have obliged their consumers to possess prior knowledge of the actual or conjectured social relationships of those letter writers. As Andrew McRae observes of verse libels, understanding fully these letters “assumes an informed reader.”5 In short, a reader’s prior knowledge would appear to be vital for the reader to comprehend the details of a correspondence, and, finally, the intended purpose or ideological goal of the publication. On the other hand, it is conceivable that one who encountered a fake letter as if composed by a real individual, coming to the epistle without a substantial knowledge of the circumstances or events that inspired it, might have been all the more vulnerable to its ideological attitude or propagandistic position; relationships forged between unrelated events or unacquainted individuals in a feigned correspondence of this nature might simply have been seen by the unversed as genuine. The newsbook Mercurius Aulicus captures a sense of this potential after it reiterates some of the false news printed in the London newsbooks, concluding, “These are all pretty stories to catch fooles and mad-men.”6 More than handwritten letters and perhaps even oral ­communication, print developed and spread cultural narratives through publication of sometimes massive numbers of pamphlets and broadsides. The semi-­ fictional A Letter of a Jesuit of Liege Concerning the Method of ­Establishing the Catholik Religion in the Kingdom of England ­(London?, 1687 / L1563A), for instance, was an enormous propaganda effort with 100,000 copies coming off the press.7 William Montagu writes to his

Introduction  5 father Edward in December 1641 that Parliament “is like to sit long, and so must needs hatch much. For the present I am sure it produceth many printed pamphlets.”8 The rapidity with which a story was printed was central in establishing a cultural narrative. As Marmaduke Langdale writes to William Savile in late 1642, “The Parliament is far too nimble for the King in printing; the common people believe the first story which takes impression in their minds, and it cannot be beaten out.”9 In 1680, after the press had been unloosed yet again, former Chief Justice William Scroggs became the butt of many satires, one of which ventriloquizes him decrying persistent print attacks on his character: A Plague of my Starrs, that ever I shu’d be Born in a Time of P ­ rinting! … I thought to have sent all those mangy Booksellers, Printers, &c. to the Devil by whole Sale, and to have set up an Inquisition against Printing.10 Most often, institutional forces such as governments, official bodies, ­recognized authorities, and organized factions developed and perpetuated narratives advantageous to their aims, having the motivation and resources to print propaganda on a large scale. Yet individual writers and printers (with or without sponsors) also developed ideologically based narratives, sometimes publishing material with ideological ramifications for profit alone—as in the case of hack writers and Grub Street printers. Profit was among the many, sometimes mixed motivations that played a part in securing and preparing letters for print. The newsbook The ­Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer offers a rationale of public service regarding a letter Charles I sent to Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, in 1644: how to enlarge it [the letter] without running a hazard (before it come to view by publike Authority) I know not, yet considering how slow Committees are, before they bring things to light, when the Kingdom expects it, and the matter it selfe requires a publike notice; I will adventure to give some of his Majesties own words and prints most of the letter anyway.11 This newsbook offers a commitment to the public’s right to know promptly germane state ­occurrences—a drive, however, that can coincide with a profit motive. The routes these letters took to the press could be circuitous. Essex complained on August 20, 1641, that a letter sent to him by Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland, had been printed.12 It happened that Matthew Simmons, who printed it, received a copy from Francis Coles, who purchased it from Ambrose Bayly, who had acquired it from William Harrison, a servant of the ­Sergeant of the House. Harrison confessed that Edward Payton encouraged him to obtain it from Anthony Irby, and before giving the letter to Payton, loaned it to Bayly who copied it.13 Although I focus on religious and

6  Introduction political motivations for publishing letters, writers had a multiplicity of rationales for preparing letters for print and printers for securing them.14 Yet even when authors and printers had solely mercenary motives for producing letters for the press, this fact would not abrogate the ideological impact such pamphlets or broadsides might have had. Where origins— authors, printers, sponsors, patrons, and so on—can be ­determined and are relevant, I discuss them, as the reasons for ­representing political and religious attitudes in printed fictional, satirical, collected, and intercepted letters constitute a central feature of this book. Speeches, dialogues, prayers, messages, soliloquies, lamentations, and meditations in print also ventriloquize voice, sometimes earnestly, sometimes satirically; and in many cases, there are few differences between these sorts of print ventriloquy and that exemplified in fictional letters. Some of the texts I evaluate are letters in name only and do not always contain the typical generic elements of letters such as dates, superscriptions, salutations, subscriptions, and “signatures.” However, specific rhetorical outcomes resulted from using the letter form and its unique conventions. The following list contains some elemental characteristics of letters that permitted them to operate effectively in print; writers preparing letters for print exploited these properties to both construct and frame the letters they printed: 1 Letters allow access into one’s inner thoughts. This was a ­customary assumption, and frequently used to frame publications of intercepted, captured, and discovered letters, for instance, in the introduction to Blacklo’s Cabal Discovered (2nd ed., Douai?, 1680 / P4186): “nothing seemes to bear so much of conviction as these Letters: where in they speak their minds them selves freely.”15 In fictional print letters, those written in the names of other individuals, the letter form implies that the contents are genuine reflections of what the letter writers are thinking and feeling. In satirical print letters, the ­ventriloquized letter writers are as if writing and then publishing “confessional” letters for all to read—letters in which the writers reveal all of their immoral thoughts. In familiar letter collections it is a trope deployed to affirm authenticity and transparency, as in Thomas Forde’s assurance that “Letters [are] the best Casements, whereby men disclose themselves,” which he uses to preface his ­ amiliar collection of letters Faenestra in Pectore, or A ­C entury of F Letters.16 Exploiting this convention in print allowed authors of fictional and collected letters, as well as framers of ­intercepted, captured, and discovered letters, to convince readers of the veracity of the contents therein in order to construct persuasive ideological standpoints or compelling propaganda. 2 Letters possess an evidentiary or documentary property. Dating a letter has the effect of locking it into a precise moment in time; the

Introduction  7 content of a letter is therefore documented through this epistolary convention. Because dating a handwritten letter is a function of the form, dating a letter in print in determined ways could be used for a variety of persuasive purposes: dates were manipulated to make it appear that what happened at an earlier time occurred later, as in one of the intercepted letters in The Kings Packet of Letters Taken by Colonell Rossiter (1645, Oct. 13 / C2359); or, conversely, to make it appear that what happened at a later time occurred earlier, as in the satirical A Letter from Paris from Sir George Wakeman to His Friend Sir W[illiam] S[croggs] in London (1681 / L1495B). James Howell wrote (or at least adapted) some of the letters in Epistolae Ho-Elianae (1645, July 2T / H3071) for print during the 1640s while in prison, antedating some to appear to have been written at a much earlier time. Moreover, early modern letter writers composing handwritten letters commonly included their location, at what place the epistle was written or from where it was posted. Letters invented for print also specified locale but for rhetorical purposes— that is, indicating that a fictional letter came from a predetermined location. In short, the conventional inscription of date and place in handwritten letters was exploited in letters prepared for print to confer veracity on them, to make them appear as documented fact. Because letters were also regularly used as evidence in early modern courts of law—for instance in contract, probate, defamation, and treason cases—letters in print possessed a quasi-legal character by virtue of this association. “Letters are the most legible Characters of the truth,” one newsbook puts it in presenting a letter to document accurate news.17 3 Letters possess transmissive properties. The raison d’être of early modern letters was that they allowed communication over distance when face-to-face contact was not convenient or possible. This fact of early modern epistolary communication was exploited in fictional and satirical letters as a rhetorical device: letters were a suitable medium to frame long-distance communications, for instance, letters from distant locales and foreign lands, from heaven and hell. 4 A letter ties two or more people together in a social bond. Epistolary exchange creates a core relationship between given correspondents participating in even a routine exchange of handwritten letters. This fact was exploited for persuasive purposes in letters devised for print to emphasize ties between people who indeed corresponded, but it could be equally well maneuvered to tie together individuals who never corresponded to fix them as like-minded. The strategy was often used in fictional and satirical letters as an associative mechanism to bind individuals together in a coterie, special interest, or cabal since letter exchange could also be modeled as a form of ­secret correspondence—especially if it was framed as originally in

8  Introduction cipher. Additionally, other individuals could be drawn into a cadre, accurately or not, by the common formulae of handwritten letters ­“Remember me to …” and “Send my acknowledgements to …”; in print these formulae were used to include others in a clandestine cabal or dangerous confederacy, guilty by association. 5 Letter exchange involves reciprocity. This is a corollary of 4. ­L etter exchange is predicated on the assumption of reciprocity and so lends itself ideally in print to dialectic processes, as in animadversion and debate. Because at least two individuals take part in a letter ­exchange, both can be evaluated in epistolary dispatch-and-response publications (either in the same pamphlet or broadside, or in separate pamphlets or broadsides) to illustrate both sides of the correspondence. Yet the implication of reciprocity is activated even when only a single letter from a writer to a recipient was published since the names of both the letter writer and the recipient are inscribed in the text, indicating the likelihood of ongoing communication. 6 Letters embed language in textual form. As opposed to the ­orality of speeches and dialogues, letters, since they are written and ­preserved on paper, retain a dedicated textual form. By composing fictional or satirical works expressly in epistolary form—as opposed to ventriloquizing the fictions as speeches or dialogues—authors of ­fictional letters in the pens of others made determined judgments to fix the content in a textual form that permitted the operation of the other dimensions of epistolary convention (Numbers 1–5 here). Common usages of handwritten letter writing were also transformed into print “codes” for rhetorical purposes in print letters. For instance, ­acknowledging receipt of a last letter in a handwritten correspondence confirmed an unbroken circuit of exchange; but in a fictional letter formulated for print, acknowledging receipt of a last letter coded the disinterested nature of the correspondence, hence its reliability, so that the ensuing content appeared not as ­polemical, propagandistic, or otherwise ideological but simply as part of a long-standing, neutral exchange.18 Similarly, identifying a letter invented for print as intercepted, discovered, or captured coded the letter’s contents as sincere (see 1) to give veracity to the letter; since intercepted, ­discovered, and captured letters exposed private matter exchanged between correspondents, these often coded secrecy, as well. The fact of epistolary interreferentiality—when a given letter refers to another letter—was also exploited in fictional and satirical letters to define relationships and shared narratives. 7 Letters informed news culture. This fact is related to 2 and 6. ­L etters quoted, letters paraphrased, letters summarized, and letters referenced comprise the majority of the content of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century news pamphlets, corantoes, newsbooks, and newssheets. Susan Whyman observes that “the first newspapers

Introduction  9 were batches of letters.”19 News pamphlets from roughly the mid-­ sixteenth century forward were regularly titled to foreground source material in letters—the “true copy of a letter” sort—as were some early seventeenth-century corantoes. The newsbook M ­ ercurius ­Civicus indicates that “The most unquestionable way to make good intelligence, is to deliver it in the same Letters from which it was received.”20 The very name of a seventeenth-century newsbook or newssheet often reflected the weight given to content originating in letters: The Kingdomes Weekly Post with His Packet of Letters (featuring a messenger on horseback on the title page), The ­C itties Weekly Post, The Daily Intelligencer of Court … Which May Save Much Labour in Writing of Letters, The Parliaments Post, Wednesday’s Mercury, Severall Letters from Scotland, Packet of Letters, The Politique Post, Severall Letters from Scotland of the Proceedings of the Army, The Weekely Post-Master, Packets of Letters … to Members of the House of Commons, The Post Boy, The ­English Post with News Foreign and Domestick, and many others. A ­newsbook could even frame itself as a substitute for handwritten epistolary communication. The Scottish Dove refers to “the satisfaction of my Country Friends, for whose sakes I chiefly send out my weekly Dove, that once writing may serve all; and save me labour in writing ­severall letters to many severall friends.”21 In short, “letters” and “news” were in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mind so closely associated as to be synonymous. 22 This associative energy ­allowed all sorts of ideologically or propagandistically oriented letters in print the power to inhabit a space notionally reserved for factual information. In addition, one of the dynamics I highlight in this study is the vital interplay between letters printed in pamphlets and newsbook commentary on those letters, which commentary often certified various letters as authentic or condemned them as forgeries.

*** In Chapter 1, I treat straightforward political and religious epistolary fictions composed in the names of real individuals or under personae. Current events, factual occurrences, recent and past history often served as the ground for a given pamphlet, broadside, or newsbook epistolary fiction; but those writing such letters in the names of others amplified the current events or factual occurrences or recent history in which the individuals were involved to posit an ideologically inflected perspective on their victims. Explicit cultural narratives were therefore embodied in and reinforced by these letters. The individuals supposedly writing these letters were typically constructed to appear either dangerous or ludicrous. Straightforward fictional letters where

10  Introduction the letter writers appear perfidious, threatening, or treacherous resulted from the first strategy; satirical letters of self-condemnation where the letter writers appear foolish, preposterous, or laughable resulted from the second approach. Admittedly, the determination is sometimes difficult to make since otherwise straightforward fictional letters can include touches of satirical self-denunciation; I classify the letters based on their overall tone or objective, whether they tend to characterize their victims as dangerous and threatening or as foolish and laughable. Fictional letters of a comical, satirical bent are therefore the subject of Chapter 2. These letters were also written as if in the pens of others, usually religious or political enemies, but not always—fictional characters such as Lucifer were also ventriloquized to appear to have corresponded with ideological foes. Authors reiterated or developed or exaggerated the discourses circulating in various cultural narratives about specific individuals when composing satirical letters as if written by those individuals in order to satirize them. Moreover, details and circumstances were often wholly invented by authors composing letters in the names of o ­ thers to make the targets of the satire appear that much more ridiculous, stupid, or immoral. In short, this chapter is not just a study of where literary mode (satire) and genre (letters) meet; in it, I develop broadly the confluence of satire, epistolarity, news, and fiction in print culture. In Chapter 3, I shift focus to examine the few familiar letter ­collections printed by English secular writers. The first of the century was the ­collection of James Howell, initially published in 1645; it was followed in the next two decades by those of Robert Loveday, Thomas Forde, and Margaret Cavendish. These four familiar letter writers responded to the political circumstances of the 1640s and 1650s by printing letters critical of the culture of the civil war, commonwealth, and protectorate years; they rejected the cultural narratives of the revolution and its ­aftermath, forging their own narratives of social, political, and religious rectitude by virtue of the magnitude of their collections. Each of these letter collections was composed by a loyalist; taken together, they offer a distinctive epistolary intervention into the political conversation of the 1640s and 1650s. I return to analysis on a broad scale in Chapter 4 with an ­examination of political and religious propaganda in the form of authentic intercepted, captured, and discovered letters in print. These sorts of letters constitute a substantial subgenre of print letters—the largest of any of the types I examine in this book. The potent propaganda of intercepted, captured, and discovered letters derived not only from publically ­exposing an ­enemy’s stratagems, plots, and deceptions, but also from framing the letters to embody specific cultural narratives in condemnation of their writers and recipients.

Introduction  11 ­ ecessitate Some of the analyses I undertake in Chapters 1, 2, and 4 n distinguishing genuine letters from fake letters since an accurate investigation of an epistolary fiction—be it a straightforward fictional letter, a satirical fictional letter, or a fictional intercepted letter—requires sorting out authorship. Contemporary writers indeed spilled much ink attempting to distinguish authentic from forged letters, though most of the debate was ideological, where contending factions argued that a given letter in print was genuine or counterfeit in accordance with their ideological perspective. The newsbook Mercurius Aulicus offers an opinion of the nature of phony letters (even though Aulicus itself faked letters for print) in the process of condemning one such as forged: we should not againe have mentioned this forged Letter, but that we see it reprinted in 9 severall Pamphlets, insomuch that the Author of the London Occurrences saies, he will omit it, because tis out at large so often already. And yet that very Newes-man is the most weekely Letter-maker of any in the Corporation, particularly, this weeke he hath compiled noe lesse then foure severall Epistles, one whereof he subscribes – Secret[ary Edward] Nicholas – a name these Penmen make very frequent use of, whereby to convey more credit to their Inventions, as coming from a Person that’s a knowne great lover of Truth and Integrity. 23 Even though news was becoming a “discourse of fact” during the ­seventeenth century, and many readers attempted to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, it was often impossible to tell at the time what was factual and what was fictional. 24 In the process of ­sorting out real letters from fake ones, I have identified letters that have hitherto been taken as authentic and used as evidence in history ­writing. Yet, at any given time throughout this century, a letter’s authenticity or fictionality was sometimes secondary to its reception by, and impact on, the wider public sphere; verification of a letter’s authenticity or spuriousness became occluded by widespread predeterminations that overwhelmed the facts of a given letter’s status. For example, after attempting to prove that the lead letter in The Coppy of a Letter of Father [Robert] Philips … to … Mr. [Walter] Montague (1641 / P2039-A) was phony, seventeenth-­century historian John Nalson concludes that the letter’s ­fictionality was virtually beside the point: “Real or ­Counterfeit, it [the letter] served their [the parliamentary party’s] Turn, made a mighty Noise, and furnished them with a fresh Supply of those Fears and Jealousies with which they intoxicated the People.”25 To further complicate determinations of authenticity, the factual and the nonfactual were sometimes blended together in the same pamphlet. Dagmar Freist observes that in John Taylor’s The Liar (1641 / T475) Taylor does not simply define a lie as “the opposite of truth alone, but as fiction and

12  Introduction wonder stories interwoven with facts.”26 In another case, Aulicus admits that a news report in one of a contending newsbook’s letters “I must freely confesse … deceived me some weekes agone … taking that Letter for genuine.”27 The ­dynamic between fact and fiction in print was as fluid as it was contentious. In the ensuing chapters I not only catalogue some of the untold ­number of fictional, satirical, and intercepted letters printed during the century—many of which have gone unremarked upon in the scholarship of the literature of the period; I hope also to contribute to existing scholarship in a variety of ways. I wish to participate, fundamentally, in research dedicated to investigating the sundry uses of letter writing to engage religion and politics, highlighting the unique uses of the epistolary form in such engagement. I expect in turn to apply this research to the interface of manuscript culture and print culture where tremendous transformations occur when, for instance, at its most basic level, a handwritten letter composed by a single individual and meant for another individual alone comes—either intentionally or not—into the purview of hundreds or even thousands of people. This essential circumstance, a solitary exchange transmuted via print into a communication consumed by many, serves to highlight the manner in which letters were exploited as propaganda and how they operated as vehicles of cultural narrative.

Notes 1 Salutem in Christo has several ESTC numbers, the following 1571 impressions printed in London: 11504, 11505, 11505.5, 11506. 2 Dagmar Freist writes that “politics in the seventeenth century cannot be understood fully without recognizing that it is centrally connected to communication, information, rumour and gossip.” Governed by Opinion: ­Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (London: I. B. Tauris, 1997), 299. 3 A Letter Out of Scotland from Mr. R[oger] L[’]S[trange] to His Friend H[enry]B[rome] (1681 / L1269), 4. 4 Thomas Beebee, Epistolary Fiction in Europe, 1500–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 78. 5 Andrew McRae, Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 39. 6 Aulicus, 50th week, Dec. 16, 1643 (E.79[19]), 718. 7 J. R. Jones, The Revolution of 1688 in England (New York: Norton, 1972), 227. 8 D. F. McKenzie and Maureen Bell, eds., A Chronology and Calendar of ­Documents Relating to the London Book Trade, 1641–1700, 3 vols. ­(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1:31. 9 McKenzie and Bell, 1:74. 10 The Bellowings of a Wild-Bull, or Scroggs’s Roaring Lamentation (1680 / B1859), 3. 11 Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 68, Aug. 14–20, 1644 (E.6[29]), 543. 12 Journals of the House of Commons, 13 vols. (London: His Majesty’s ­Stationery Office, 1802), 2:266, accessed via British History Online,

Introduction  13

13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27

www.british-history.ac.uk/search/series/commons-jrnl (henceforth abbreviated as CJ). The publication is The Copy of a Letter Sent from the Earle of Holland to an Honourable Lord at the Parliament (1641 / H2418). CJ, 2:268. Jason Peacey has detailed the complex and sometimes multiple motives of authors in the production of propaganda in Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004). See 64–65, 301, for mixed motives but Chapter 2 generally. Robert Pugh, The Epistle to the Catholick Reader, unsigned (sixth page). Forde, Faenestra in Pectore, or A Century of Familiar Letters is part of the larger gathering Virtus Rediviva (1660, Oct.T / F1550), To the Reader, ­unsigned (first page). The London Post, 22, Feb. 4, 1645 (E.27[10]), 4. For more on print codes, see Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1500–1700 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 184–86, 189–91. Susan Whyman, Sociability and Power in Late-Stuart England: The ­C ultural Worlds of the Verneys, 1660–1720 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 10. See also Beebee, 78; Ian Atherton, “‘The Itch grown a Disease’: ­Manuscript Transmission of News in the Seventeenth Century,” in News, Newspapers, and Society in Early Modern Britain, ed. Joad R ­ aymond (London: Frank Cass, 1999), 40 (39–65); and David Randall, “Epistolary ­R hetoric, the Newspaper, and the Public Sphere,” Past & Present 198 (Feb. 2008): 22–23, 27 (3–32). Quoted in Joad Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English ­Newsbooks, 1641–1649 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 53. Scottish Dove, 61, Dec. 13–20, 1644 (E.21[36]), 474. The tie persisted well into the eighteenth century, even in professional handwritten newsletters. See, for instance, the newsletters in British ­Library ­Additional Manuscript 70070: July 28, 1713, “They write fro[m] ­Warsaw …”; October 20, 1713, “Letters from Barcelona advise …”; and so on (the manuscript is unfoliated). Aulicus, N/A, Apr. 20–27, 1645 (E.284[20]), 1562. Barbara J. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 86, 92, on discourse of fact; and McRae, 37, on news and fact. John Nalson, An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, 2 vols. (1682–1683 / N106-A, N107-A), 2:317. I quote from N107. Freist, 81. Aulicus, 48th week, Dec. 2, 1643 (E.78[16]), 693.

1 Epistolary Fiction in Pamphlet, Broadside, and Newsbook Publication

every Epistolist hath this privilege above others, that he may personate any Humour, and yet not patronize it —Robert Beaumont, Loves Missives to Virtue (1660)1

In his book Epistolary Fiction in Europe, 1500–1850, Thomas Beebee writes that “[epistolary] fiction can be found everywhere, and not just in texts aimed specifically at aesthetic consumption.”2 This statement could have served equally well as the epigraph to this chapter, for it embodies a comprehensive perception of epistolary fiction in the early modern ­period. Yet even earlier scholarship of epistolary fiction has ­offered opportunities to understand its broader scope. In 1966, for ­instance, Robert Day Adams wrote that epistolary narrative consists of “the development of technique for depicting and analyzing emotion, thought, motive, character, and reaction to events.”3 Adams opens a space in which one can apply the operations of epistolary fiction to other discourses, since a letter writer’s “emotion, thought, motive, character, and reaction to events” are marked equally well in epistolary texts not customarily designated as epistolary fiction. Elizabeth J. MacArthur ­affirms still more inclusively—yet no less insightfully—that “Any letter already involves some of the essential elements of a narrative: at least two characters, the writer and the addressee, and some sort of relationship between them.”4 A given letter has a writer and an addressee, establishes a relationship between them, and launches a narrative momentum: this fundamental process also characterizes print texts that offer correspondences between real individuals who never actually wrote to one another or between entirely imaginary individuals—but epistolary ­fictions ­expressly composed in order to forward polemical, ideological, or ­propagandistic aims. These sorts of texts include letters printed as pamphlets, as ­broadsides, and in newsbooks that addressed religious subjects and political ­occurrences. Previous studies of epistolary fiction generally have not considered letters in pamphlet, broadside, or newsbook form as a species of epistolary fiction, likely because such letters were most frequently—though

Epistolary Fiction  15 not exclusively—published singly; many letters in pamphlet and broadside form therefore do not embody a conventional narrative drive manifested by way of multiple letters, such as, for e­ xample, the first installment of Aphra Behn’s Love-Letters between a Noble-Man and His Sister (1684 / B1740). However, when Robert ­Beaumont suggests that letter writers “may personate any Humour, and yet not patronize it,” he grants letter writers a privileged position to play a role, to ventriloquize a voice, and to embrace a belief they do not hold. In short, Beaumont discerns letter writers’ freedom to compose fictions—and indeed fictions that do not seek principally literary or aesthetic objectives. Indeed, the epistolary fictions I investigate here were published in substantial numbers in periods of particular religious and political stress, and in this chapter I hope to facilitate both the organization and the understanding of this massive pamphlet and broadside publication. Notably, writing letters in the names of others had pedagogical ­precedent; the practice was part of the rhetorical training advocated by Renaissance humanists. In rhetoric, the use of a persona in literature is called prosopographia, the “impersonation of a historical individual,” while prosopopoeia is “the feigning of a person who is fictional.”5 ­A rthur F. Kinney calls these “the most popular figures used by Tudor humanists as rhetorical techne,” and training in these usages was an express part of epistolary writing instruction.6 These rhetorical techne ended up as tools commonly utilized in preparing letters for print throughout the early modern period; however, a writer employing prosopographia or prosopopoeia in print could wind up accused of scandal, libel, or sedition—writers writing letters in the names of others, either real or fictional individuals, were indeed pilloried and imprisoned during the seventeenth century. ­ odern “Epistolary form became important to fiction in the early m period because of the discursive power it possessed due to the l­etter’s heterogeneous social uses,” writes Beebee.7 These uses included ­pamphleteering, and past scholarship on pamphlet publication has demonstrated the nature and value of fiction in pamphleteering. Gerald MacLean writes of civil war print letters that “at least some of them were fake—publishing the enemy’s secret could involve all kinds of misinformation and ventriloquism.”8 Mark Knights suggests of later Stuart Britain that Representation in either political or linguistic form creates a fiction. It seeks or claims to make present what is not present, it offers to make an image, copy, or idea of something which is absent and then make it act or perform in some way.9 Nigel Smith goes so far as to suggest that “Fictionalizing had ­supplemented or replaced controversializing” during the 1640s and 1650s, while Joad

16  Epistolary Fiction Raymond pinpoints the letter fiction as “a serviceable element of political writing” during the periods of religious and political tension throughout the century.10 During the civil wars, the expectation that fictionalizing constituted a feature of the print war was indeed common. As the royalist newsbook Mercurius Elencticus puts it in 1647, Parliament’s end is now (as ever) to make the King odious to his people; to ­possesse them with new jealousies and feares of designes and plots; as if the King were privately preparing for a new Warre: and the next thing (in course) will be some counterfeit Papers and Letters published to that purpose. Elencticus hastens to add, however, “But this way cannot take; tis so stale the people will not now relish it.”11 A few words about the authorship of these fictional letters: the ­fictional letters in pamphlets, broadsides, and newsbooks I examine in this c­ hapter are those whose actual authors have been identified, those that could not possibly have been written by the individuals named as the correspondents, or those that were clearly faked based on external or internal evidence. The individuals most often ventriloquized were well-known individuals—most often living but others dead, while authors of other epistolary fictions offered as their letter writers imaginary personae and were, therefore, pseudonymously or anonymously authored. In short, to be certain that I am indeed writing about fictional texts, I do not examine any of the letters in print by unknown gentlemen or divines or friends whose authors have not been identified. These may be fictional or employ personae but cannot always be proven so—perhaps the author of a typically titled publication using epistolary form, the anonymous A True Copy of a Letter Sent from a Gentleman of Worth in Ireland to a Speciall Friend of His (1641 / T2620A), for example, was indeed a gentleman of worth from Ireland. The inverse is also possible: mistaking a fictional letter for a real one. For example, Mary Anne Everett Green, editor of Queen Henrietta Maria’s correspondence, supposed that The Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton, One of the Gentlemen Ushers unto the Lady Elizabeth (1642 / N1075) offered a factual account of Queen Henrietta Maria’s arrival and treatment in Holland in 1642. But the letter is, in fact, fake as no William Newton served Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia.12 I therefore limit the texts I examine in this chapter to those whose actual authors have been identified or are without a doubt fictional or fictionalized. I have one exception to this rule, however: because the a­ uthenticity of some of these letters was hotly contested, I also include in this chapter a discussion of a few letters whose authors are unknown and whose fictionality is uncertain but which were the subject of the genuine–­counterfeit dispute to highlight how at times the power of the ideological or ­propagandistic contestation of a questionable letter in print could overwhelm or obscure

Epistolary Fiction  17 determinations of its authenticity. A Letter from Gen. Monck to King ­ eceased (1660 / A852A), Charls, Son of the Late King Charls of England, D for instance, was either forged or altered. In the letter, dated December 30, 1659, General George Monck commits to the Restoration, but his decision to do so was thought not to have come until April 1660.13 This letter is also the lead letter in A Collection of Several Letters and Declarations Sent by General Monck (1660 / A840, A865), printed in September, well after the Restoration, where it is mixed with authentic letters. But whereas C. H. Firth asserts that this collection was “published in 1660 by a republican whose object was to show Monck’s treachery by putting on record his protestations of fidelity to the republic,” there also appears to be a royalist rationale for the fabrication or modification of this letter: It seems … to be tolerably ascertained by the evidence of [Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of] Clarendon and others, that Monk’s first precise declaration in favour of the king was made to Sir John Greenville at London; but there are obvious reasons why both the king and the general might chuse to represent their correspondence as of an earlier commencement, and to such reasons we owe, in all probability, the fabrication of these letters, or, at least, the falsification of the date.14 Even a modern biographer of Monck equivocates on the determination of the authenticity of this letter.15 It is indeed often difficult to determine the origins of fake letters in print. Some no doubt came from printers, or writers hired by printers, and published for profit. In such cases, partisanship may or may not have determined the ideological content of those fictional letters. Other fictional letters were commissioned by powerful authorities with specific political or religious agendas in mind. In short, the station, position, and motivation of the individuals who produced these epistolary fictions varied significantly: whereas hack-writer John Bond composed a letter as if written by Queen Henrietta Maria called A Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague in Holland to the Kings Majesty Residing at Yorke (1642 / H1456) for what he claimed were solely mercenary reasons, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and treasurer to Charles II, sponsored Anglican clergyman John Nalson to write A Letter from a Jesuit at Paris to His Correspondent in London (1679 / N110) to assail the Habeas Corpus Parliament.

Early Seventeenth-Century Outliers A few early seventeenth-century epistolary fictions preceded their ­wholesale publication after 1640. Two epistolary fictions that ventriloquize the dead conclude John Reynolds’s Vox Coeli, or Newes from Heaven … Whereunto Is Annexed Two Letters Written by Queene Mary from Heaven, the One to Count Gondomar … the Other to All the Romane Catholiques of England (1624 / 20946.4–8). The debate that

18  Epistolary Fiction precedes the letters concludes with the English monarchs Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, along with Queen Anne of Denmark and Prince Henry, declaring that the Spanish match is a misconceived undertaking. God approves this pronouncement and “sharply reproves and checkes [Mary], in loving Spaine, to bee so unnaturall to hate her native Countrey of England” (54) and then commands that four printed copies of the heavenly consultation be delivered to King James I, Prince Charles, the English Parliament, and the Privy Council.16 At this point, Queene Mary biting the lip at her checke and disgrace; and g­ rieving to see the Match of the Infanta with Prince CHARLES thus u ­ nexpected dash’d; and consequently the Pope frustrated of his hopes, and the King of Spaine of his Ambitious desires; Shee calls Mercury to her, and with all possible speed sends him away likewise to England, with these two ensuing Letters which shee had written, the one to Count Gondomar, the other to all the Romane Catholiques of England. (55) Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, 1st Count Gondomar, was the Spanish ­ambassador and a man popularly hated for his influence with James and his offer of the Spanish Infanta as a match for Prince Charles. In her first letter, Mary writes, They [the debaters] have … ript up and unmasked Spaines former Ambition, Cruelty, and Treacherie, as well towards England, as other Kingdomes and States of Europe, the discovery and relation whereof, I could neither silence nor prevent. (56) Mary is made to intensify fears in writing to Gondomar, Forget not to continue, and fortefie your Intelligence with the Seminaries and Jesuites of England, as also with the Catholique Ladies of that Kingdome, and especially, with those of the Nobler ranke, and who are most powerfull at Court. (57) And Mary induces anxiety in writing, Through your zeale and industry, I likewise doubt not, but (before a few yeares bee past and blowne over) to see England made a Province to Spaine; her Nobilitie most  murthered, and the rest caryed away [as] Slaves to worke in the Mines of Peru, and Mexico; the Pope installed. (58)

Epistolary Fiction  19 In her letter to all the Catholics of England, Mary exhorts them to put all your Wits on the tenter-hooks to bring in the Infanta; or else never expect the Pope, and consequently not the Catholike King. For else all your intelligence with Rome and Spaine, your correspondence with the Jesuites and Count Gondomar, will not prevaile, nor your Poyson Poniard, or Powder take effect, if the Match doe not. (59) Most pamphlet epistolary fictions underline the danger, threat, and treachery of their composers; but since Mary was long dead, this ­letter accentuates rather the danger, threat, and treachery of its recipients: ­Gondomar and English Catholics. Reynolds also exploits cultural ­narratives pertaining to treacherous priests and Jesuits, and invokes the specter of foreign invasion by Catholic powers to articulate the ­consequences of the Spanish match—a common cultural narrative ­perpetuated by many authors of epistolary fiction throughout the century, many of whom, like Reynolds, allude to the Gunpowder Plot as a compelling point of reference. As we will see with other authors of epistolary fiction, Reynolds was punished for this publication. For printing Vox Coeli and Votivae ­Angliae (1624 / 20946.2–3)—“with which the King is much displeased”—­ Reynolds was extradited from France and imprisoned in the Fleet for two years.17 ­David Colclough, however, has seen Reynolds’s pamphlet as a species of frank and honest counsel (from heaven, no less). In considering Thomas Scott and Reynolds, Colclough writes that “Their fictions consist … of probable truths that are obscured by the politic fictions of their opponents.”18 With this in mind, Vox Coeli then in part becomes a fiction attempting to unmask another fiction. Moreover, fiction—and in the case of Mary’s letters, epistolary fiction—is judged the only way to communicate advice in lieu of other avenues of counsel. Reynolds writes in the preface to Vox Coeli, When albeit my zeale and fidelity againe and again infused new ­audacitie and courage to my resolutions, to see it [Vox Coeli] receive the light, yet it was imposible for mee or it, to bee made so happy, because I sawe [Thomas] Allureds honest letter, [Thomas] Scots ­loyall Vox Populy … and others, suppressed and silenced. ([A4]) By “Allureds honest letter,” Reynolds is referring to the advice contained in Thomas Alured’s The Coppie of a Letter Written to the Duke of Buckingham Concerning the Match with Spaine, Discovering What Dangers Would Happen to This State by the Kings Marrying with One of a Contrary Religion (Sept. 2T / A2940), not published until 1642 but

20  Epistolary Fiction circulating widely in manuscript during the 1620s, in which, as the title of the later pamphlet makes plain, Alured advises George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, against the Spanish match.19 Notably, the term “honest letter” is also reiterated in the body of Reynolds’s pamphlet in a speech of Queen Elizabeth: the Romane Catholikes of England have reason to beleeve ­Gondomar; sith King JAMES loves him well, as hee esteemes his speeches ­Oracles  and Scripture … that no sincere advise, honest Letter, Religious ­Sermon, or true picture can point at the King of Spaine, but they are called in. (45) The implication, ironically enough, is that since honest letters of frank counsel can have no effect, the fictional ones that Reynolds invents— those put in the pen of Queen Mary—might have impact. The Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor of the Societie of Jesu to the Covenanters in Scotland Wherin Is Paralleled Our Sweet Harmony and Correspondency in Divers Materiall Points of Doctrine and Practice (1640 / 5751.5, 5752-.5) was printed between the first and second Bishops’ Wars.20 It begins, “I doe heartily congratulate with you (most worthy Brethren of the holy League) and also rejoyce in behalfe of our Mother-Church of Rome at your begun returne from your former errors and heresies” (1), and the pseudonymous author goes on to outline sixteen definitive correspondences between Jesuitism and Presbyterianism, expressly how the Covenanters have adopted Jesuit writings and Catholic practices. This pamphlet may have been produced with the backing of the English government to vilify the Covenanters as heretics and as dangerous as Jesuits, and its principal author was John Corbet, minister and polemist.21 The letter was challenged in April by Robert Baillie in Ladensium Autokatakrisis, the Canterburians Self-Conviction … with a Post-Script to the Personat Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor (Glasgow, 1640 / 1205; ­Amsterdam, 1640 / 1206), in which, after questioning the legitimacy of the name Lysimachus Nicanor, Baillie proposes Bishop Henry Leslie as the pamphlet’s author based on the letter’s stylistic qualities—that “any who had perused your former schenick writs … might easily have guessed at your stile and humour in this your last writ” (Postscript, 3). 22 Using the pseudonym Philopatris, William Mure also pilloried the “false Lysimachus” in A Counter-Buff to Lysimachus Nicanor Calling Himself a ­Jesuite (Edinburgh, 1640 / 18062), in which the author of the pamphlet is condemned as a libeler and traitor who deserves to be executed: Then false Lysimachus, thou runnigate, That seems to pry into the soule of state, That personates a subtile Jesuite,

Epistolary Fiction  21 And yet art known a homebred parasite, That hath belcht forth a rapsodie of lies, And ‘gainst thy Countrey false coyn’d calumnies: Thou by our Statutes hast deserv’d to die[.]

(4)

Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor saw republication in 1679 as The Jesuits Letter of Thanks to the Covenanters in Scotland for Their Compliance in Divers Material Points of Roman Catholick Doctrine and Practice (J721), whose publisher acknowledges the 1640 pamphlet by referring to the 1679 publication as “The Second Edition.” Except for the modification of the title, no other changes were made to the text, and it was no doubt printed as a direct response to a C ­ ovenanter uprising in June 1679. As such, the publisher is insinuating a long history of Covenanter rebellion against the doctrine and practices of the Church of England. The letter was reprinted yet again in early 1684 under its original title (Oxford / C6247) but reframed by Andrew Allam, Oxford antiquary and minister. 23 Allam acknowledges the letter as an epistolary fiction, but for Allam this does not make its contents any less accurate, while printer Leonard Lichfield in the dedicatory epistle gives its author the proper recognition: When this first appear’d, the iniquity of the times would neither permit the Author [Corbet] to own, or a Patron to defend it. ... A zealous Lover of the Author, and a friend to Truth, now discloseth him to publick fame; and puts an Inscription on his Monument. ([a4]) In his introduction, Allam offers a brief biography of Corbet, referring to the pamphlet as an “Epistolary treatise” (To the Reader, 1); ­A llam in turn attacks the attackers Baillie and Mure for their ineffectual ­railing. Baillie, in The Unloading of Issachars Burthen, had defined Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor as a “most scurrilous and ­invenomed Satyre” (2), but Lichfield suggests it is indeed no satire (Epistle Dedicatory, [(a3v)]). 24 In short, the Covenanters’ past religious unorthodoxy is fact and is ongoing; the Covenanters stand by way of synecdoche for all dissenters, as Allam writes toward the end of his introduction: I presume that the just apprehensions of the great dangers under which the Nation at present labours, from the hellish Plots and Conspiracies of the Fanatical faction will excuse for not offering any other argument, whereby to induce a belief of the seasonableness of the Epistles publication. (To the Reader, 9)

22  Epistolary Fiction As a reprinted letter, Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus Nicanor represents one of many print letters exemplifying the phenomenon of the “print letter redux”—a print letter republished in a different temporal context in order to make the same or similar ideological point. 25 Print letters like Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor were recycled, and sometimes reframed and recontextualized upon reprinting. Reprinting the same letter at a later date also gives the appearance of validating the letter’s legitimacy as a historical document. All sorts of print letters were refashioned in this way throughout the period of this study, letters fictional, satirical, and intercepted. The phenomena of print letters redux, therefore, demonstrate how elastic letters in print could be: Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor was reprinted to reflect on a specific Covenanter revolt in 1679 and again in 1684 to encapsulate a broader history of dissenter agitation identified as almost half a century old. Like some lengthy late sixteenth-century epistolary fictions such as William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley’s The Copie of a Letter Sent Out of England to Don Bernardin Mendoza (1588 / 15412, 15413, 15413.5), at 78 pages Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor is difficult to credit as a genuinely sent letter—all printings of the letter are of course loaded religious polemics of the sort that sometimes took epistolary form and employed ventriloquy. Such lengthy controversial pamphlets continued to be published in the form of letters whose authors adopted personae: the 71-page A Letter from a True and Lawfull Member of Parliament (London?, 1656, July 21T / C4424), in which Clarendon takes the role of a member of the 1654 Parliament to argue against the establishment of major generals; and the 30-page A New Discovery of the Horrid Association & Conspiracy of the Papists in Lancashire … in a Letter of Instructions from a Roman Catholick … in London to a Papist Mutineer in Lancashire (1690 / G36), in which author-printer Jonathan Greenwood takes the role of a London Catholic to argue for compliance to William III’s government, serve as but two examples. ­A fter 1640, however, epistolary fictions tended to be shorter—much more like letters actually sent tended to be.

Faking the Earl of Strafford’s Letters Epistolary fiction in pamphlet and broadside form radically increased beginning in 1641. Among the first printed were letters attributed to Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, appearing immediately a­ fter his May 12, 1641, execution. Three letters were printed under his name, but only one was authentic. These three letters were published numerous times in various forms and often with other documents such as ­Strafford’s petition to Parliament, a prayer, an elegy, and speeches. The three letters consist of Strafford’s farewell letter to his wife, his letter to

Epistolary Fiction  23 an unnamed “great lady,” and his letter to King Charles. Only the last was in fact composed by Strafford. The publications in which the two fake letters appeared, all of which are from 1641, are as follows: A Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland a Little before His Death, May 11, 1641 (S5786) A Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland a Little before His Death, May 11, 1641, Together with a Speech of Mr. Plydell (S5787) The Earle of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty ­Messenger with His Prayer at Tower Hill, 12 of May 1641 (S5788)26 The True Copies of the Three Last Letters Written by the Late Earle of Strafford, the One unto His Sacred Majesty, the Other to His Lady in Ireland, the Third to a Lady of Great Note, Together with … the Psalme That He Chose to Read at the Time of His Death (S5797) The True Copies of Two Letters Written by the Late Earl of Strafford, the One to His Sacred Majesty, the Other to a Lady of Great Note (S5797A) Two Letters Sent from the Earle of Strafford, One to His Lady in Ireland … and Another to a Certaine Great Ladie (S5801) These two letters were foisted onto Strafford to participate in the diverse strategies used to fashion an image of the earl after his death. Much was at stake in Strafford’s execution; how Strafford’s execution was handled textually was, therefore, of the utmost importance. As Terence Kilburn and Anthony Milton put it, “After his death, the political struggle over Strafford’s legacy continued. In the politics of later 1641 and 1642, the reputation of Strafford and the manner of his death became an important ground of political controversy.”27 Letters identified as his were part of the attempt to assert specific narratives of Strafford’s last actions and final intentions. Strafford did not confess his guilt on the scaffold; he did not recant but rather emphasized his innocence, and he warned the country of the result of reformation that began with the shedding of blood. As such, his scaffold speech did not suit the official requirements of scaffold speeches; a speech was therefore invented and then printed to meet that criteria, but one that Strafford ostensibly gave when he was about to leave the Tower before he reached the public platform of the scaffold. In this speech, he accepted the justice of the case against him. 28 To counter this fake speech, A Protestation against a Foolish, Ridiculous and ­Scandalous Speech, Pretended to Be Spoken by Thomas Wentworth … also against the Simple and Absurd Letter to His Lady in Ireland (1641 / P3856) was published, possibly prepared by the Wentworth family; here ­Strafford is not portrayed as penitent but as resolute. 29 Into these

24  Epistolary Fiction competing narratives fall the two letters. The more important of the two letters is the falsified letter to his wife. It is called “simple and absurd” in the subtitle of Protestation against a Foolish, Ridiculous, and ­Scandalous Speech because the letter published as a letter of Strafford’s was actually Walter Ralegh’s 1603 farewell letter to his wife with the identifying details omitted or modified. 30 According to Agnes Latham and Joyce Youings, editors of Ralegh’s correspondence, Ralegh’s letter exists in two distinct versions. The ­longer of the two is the closest to what Ralegh originally wrote the night before he believed he was going to be executed; in the second, slightly shorter version specifying details were deleted, and this version constituted the first published version, appearing in 1644 as To Day a Man, To Morrow None, or Sir Walter Rawleighs Farewell to His Lady (Jan. 16 T / R191).31 Significant text was both omitted from and inserted into the letter as attributed to Strafford; in these deletions and additions, ideological force is evident. For instance, two passages that occur in both the long and short versions of Ralegh’s original letter were suggestively removed from Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland a Little before His Death, May 11, 1641. The first deleted passage is “And I trust that my blood will quench the malice that have thus cruelly murthered mee, and that they will not seeke alsoe to kill thee and thine with extreame povertie.” The other deleted passage appears near the conclusion of Ralegh’s original: “teach mee to forgive my persecutors and accusers, and send us to meete in his glorious kingdome.”32 Since retaining the original passages would hold the justice of Parliament and the sentence up to question, material from Ralegh’s letter was deleted in the letter in this publication to portray a compliant Strafford, a Strafford who is not critical of his judges. The letter to his wife in this pamphlet therefore seems to be tailored to bolster a pro-­ Parliament perspective. On the other hand, The Earle of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger with His Prayer at Tower Hill, 12 of May 1641 preserves those passages. This fact, along with other differences, demonstrates that Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty ­Messenger is decidedly pro-Strafford. Where the pro-Parliament ­Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland has Strafford write “beare my distraction patiently” (1), Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger has “beare my distruction ­patiently” (1)—a statement that is much closer to Ralegh’s original short version of the letter (“beare my destruction gently” [1]) and more critical of Strafford’s accusers.33 In another tweaking of the original texts, the pro-­ Parliament Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland has “Balo oweth me 10000 pound, and Arian 100 pound” (3), where the pro-Strafford Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger has “Balo oweth me 1000. li  and  Adrian 1000.  li”  (3).34

Epistolary Fiction  25 The  amplification  of  the  amount  of  money owed Strafford makes him appear as a much wealthier royalist in the pro-Parliament pamphlet. A Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady … Together with a Speech of Mr. Plydell is more ambiguous. It is so because, like the pro-Parliament Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland, the angry, aggressive language of Ralegh’s letter to his wife is omitted. Kilburn and Milton, however, claim that “it may represent an early attempt to exploit Wentworth’s status as a royalist martyr in its most popular and sentimental form in order to direct readers towards the defence of other aspects of the more moderate ‘constitutional royalist’ programme—in this case the defence of the episcopacy,” since this is what member of Parliament William Pleydell’s parliamentary speech concerned.35 If it were such, then why did its compiler not retain the passages of suffering and accusation that Ralegh’s original letters contained? It is more likely, as Kilburn and Milton also suggest of this pamphlet, that “This could conceivably be an example of a printer trying to make an unpopular parliamentary speech a more salable commodity by combining it with a more popular item.”36 This pamphlet indeed appears to contain no clear political line; it is likely that in its principally commercial ends, its publisher pirated a pro-Parliament version of the letter and yoked the speech to it regardless of the finer ideological nuances of the letter itself. Writing on May 18, John Coke indeed made clear that opportunities for printers to capitalize on Strafford’s execution were thoroughly exploited: “Everything sells that comes in print under his name,” Coke observes. 37 Clarity of objective, however, is marked in True Copie of the Three Last Letters Written by the Late Earle of Strafford. The compiler of this pamphlet takes the most liberties with Ralegh’s original letter in interweaving supplementary content. Where Ralegh writes near the ­beginning of the short version of his letter, “my love I send that you may keep it when I am dead, and my counsel that you may remember it when I am no more” (1), in True Copie of the Three Last Letters this is expanded into my love I send that you may keep it when I am dead, and closed in my coffin, which puts an end to all worldly cares and miseries which I am subject unto, and withal, take my Counsel, which are the words of a dying man, which ought to make a deeper impression, both of you that read my Letter, and also of the bearers, that both you and they may remember it the better, when I am no more. (A2) Other additions include expanding the original short version’s “beare my destruction gently” (1) to “bear my distraction and sad disaster ­patiently” (A2). Where Ralegh writes in his short version “I sued for

26  Epistolary Fiction my life” (4), True Copie of the Three Last Letters has “I sued and have pleaded for my life” (A2v). Most of the other additions are philosophical commonplaces such as the statements, “I hold it kind of envy to over grieve for those that are gone to rest in the Lord” and “such is this worlds friendship, in the time of a mans greatest necessity” (A2). Furthermore, the letter ends with the formal farewell “vale, vale, vale” (A2v), which is absent from both of Ralegh’s original versions and from other print versions of the letter attributed to Strafford. Because True Copie of the Three Last Letters does not contain the passages where Ralegh writes of “their malice that desire my slaughter” and his “persecutors and false accusers,” the purpose of the ­publication, I think, was not strictly political insofar as these lines would serve as a critique of Parliament as in Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger; rather, a positive portrait of Strafford was ­composed here but one that reveals Strafford as religious and stoic. I­ ndeed, most— and the most emphatic—of the additions to Ralegh’s letter consist of those referring to God. Furthermore, a long addition near the beginning of the letter calls attention to the remains, or rather the relics, of the martyred: in this case, the letter is that relic: the words of a dying man … ought to make a deeper impression, both of you that read my Letter, and also of the bearers, that both you and they may remember it the better, when I am no more. (A2) This pamphlet also includes Strafford’s petition to Parliament, the psalm he chose to read at the scaffold, and an elegy—a valediction to worldly cares—which together offer an image of a pious Strafford. The addition of other material such as speeches, prayers, and poetry make a clear-cut political perspective even more difficult to determine; hence, this pamphlet seems to perform as an affirmative, though perhaps apolitical representa­ emorial function. tion of Strafford since it serves primarily a religious and m Analysis of Ralegh’s letter to his wife as a letter by Strafford to his wife is complicated by a “letter to a great lady,” which appears in some of the pamphlets. This is the second of the letters attributed to Strafford in print after his execution, though this one is almost certainly fictional. The brief letter reads: Madam: Although there be some discovery made knowne, yet what i­ntended is made secure; wherefore you must procure two thousand pound speedily; for no danger lets difficultie to compasse it, if you keep secret: Remember your oath, for we shall slay the Beast with many heads, and destroy the Devils brood before they dreame or

Epistolary Fiction  27 mistrust. Burne the letter you have received, your reward shall be in Heaven. (True Copies of the Three Last Letters, [A4]) This “letter to a great lady” always occurs in conjunction with other material and never heads a pamphlet. It appears in (1) Two Letters Sent from the Earle of Strafford, (2) True Copies of Two Letters, (3) True Copies of the Three Last Letters, and (4) Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger. The title heading this letter in the first three of these is “A Letter sent unto a certain great Lady, and lately discovered by a strange accident, May 1641,” with True Copie of the Three Last Letters specifying the date as May 4. In Earl of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger the letter is titled simply “A Letter to a Lady.”38 This letter was, in fact, recognized in the Commons on May 12, 1641.39 The Commons Journal does not provide a text of the letter, but MP Simonds D’Ewes preserved it in his journal: To the Lady Shelley, Madam, though there be some discoveries made known yet what we intend is secure. You must disburse 2,000£. No danger, less difficulty to compass if you remain secret. Be mindful of your oath; we shall slay that beast with many heads and destroy that devilish brood before they dream or mistrust. Burn this letter. Rest safe, your reward shall be in heaven.40 Neither the House nor MP John Pym, who brought the letter to the attention of the House, attributed the letter to Strafford on the ­record; rather, this fake letter formed part of a discussion that resulted in c­ ommissions sent across England to disarm papists. The letter was subsequently foisted onto Strafford, though Lady Shelley was never ­identified as the recipient of the letter in any of the pamphlets—there was no intent to implicate her, therefore.41 The letter’s appearance in print as written by Strafford appears to be, in effect, incidental. The letter was brought to the attention of the Commons on the morning of the very day that Strafford was executed, and was either leaked to or otherwise acquired by printers. The inclusion of this letter in any given pamphlet may indicate political bias or it may simply have been used to fill a pamphlet; I cannot make an ­absolute determination on which it is, since commercial interests and political interests were not always mutually exclusive. I suppose, however, that the letter, as ambiguous as it is, may lend itself to both affirmative and disparaging readings of Strafford. The determination of this letter is d ­ ependent on what other material is included with it, for material that precedes it frames the reception of this letter that always appears after other content

28  Epistolary Fiction in a given pamphlet. From a royalist point of view, this letter may be seen as a potential rectification of the wrongs done to Strafford and to a ­populace misinformed and misguided by “the Devils brood” of those in Parliament who demanded Strafford’s execution. But from a parliamentary point of view, it may be seen as antipopulist (“we shall slay the ­ arliament (“the Beast with many heads”) and as a threat to destroy P Devils brood”), suggesting that Strafford was plotting with Catholics against England’s elected government and its Protestant citizens; indeed, Robin Clifton suggests that the letter’s language is meant to recollect that of the letter discovering the Gunpowder Plot.42 Any narrative of Catholic scheming in the “letter to a great lady” therefore seems intended to implicate Strafford in it. Yet in Earl of Strafford Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger, where the letter is simply titled “A Letter to a Lady,” the benign designation of the letter makes it appear less conspiratorial—appropriate, since this pamphlet is pro-Strafford. In True Copie of the Three Last Letters the date of “A Letter sent unto a great Lady” is specified as May 4, a date that I think was purposefully chosen since this is the date that Strafford’s genuine letter to King Charles bears. Still, associating a fictional letter with a genuine letter in this way, perhaps for the sake of authenticating it, does not of course guarantee legitimacy: even Strafford’s son mistook his father’s letter to the king as counterfeit because, as Kilburn and Milton observe, Strafford’s real letter to Charles “presumably … could be read as both justifying the execution and hinting at Strafford’s acceptance of some form of guilt”; “We may assume, perhaps, that the letter was read both ways”—indeed, in the same way that the “letter to a great lady” might have been read.43 The diverse ways in which real, misattributed, and fictional letters were fused together mark the various complex ways that epistolarity functioned in the contestation of Strafford’s image, in the sphere of public opinion and in the commercial marketplace. Epistolary content was shaped to fit political agendas and used to extend commercial endeavor.

Impersonating Royalists and Catholics In January 1642, John Bond published The Poets Knavery Discovered in All Their Lying Pamphlets … Laying Open the Names of Every Lying Lybel That Was Printed Last Yeare (B3580B, B3582), in which Bond names several fictions, some of them epistolary, concluding, “I should both trespasse too farre on (gentle Reader) your patience: and loose my selfe in the irremiable Laborinth of those inumerous fictions, neither could this Paper containe them all” ([A3v]).44 In lambasting these libels, Bond zeroes in on those that adopt the voices of well-known individuals and institutions.45 In some of the pre-civil-war fictions Bond mentions, royalists and Catholics are impersonated; many feigned letters published

Epistolary Fiction  29 beginning in 1641 were indeed constructed as if written by supporters of the king and by (closet) Catholics, most of whom are modeled as traitors in these fictions. John Suckling was the subject of some of these fictions. A Coppy of Generall Lesley’s Letter to Sir John Suckling with Sir John Sucklings Answer to His Letter (1641 / N836) is an example of an epistolary ­fiction whose narrative is based on recent history and current events. In late August 1640, General Alexander Leslie, commander of the ­Covenanter army, defeated Suckling, who was leading the king’s army near ­Newcastle, in the second Bishops’ War; during the battle Leslie reportedly captured Suckling’s coach and clothing.46 Leslie’s letter is placed first in the pamphlet, as if he initiated the letter exchange, and he begins his letter by sardonically mourning Suckling’s flight from England after his implication in the first Army Plot in May 1641. Leslie goes on to ridicule Suckling’s bravery: it is constantly related, that you are fled from your Countrey, whether it be out of discontent, or any other intended designe, is not as yet certaine. Trust me, I ever retained this opinion of you, that your heeles were as swift for any action of your head. (3–4) Leslie concludes his letter sarcastically after much invective against Suckling’s abilities and character, “Your answer is expected by him, who honours your parts and person. / Lesley” (5). Suckling, in his letter of response, is ventriloquized to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of ­L eslie’s contempt, salvaging himself from Leslie’s insults by twisting them around to criticize his detractor. In Suckling’s return letter, for ­example, he refers to Leslie’s comment on his cowardice, but turns it back on Leslie to criticize Leslie’s bellicosity: “if flight from an Enemy deserve such a style; what may hee deserve, who flyes from his Countrey to prey upon an others state?” (7). The fictional Suckling–Leslie exchange is not based entirely on c­ urrent events since the pamphlet was published approximately nine months ­after the battle took place. Rather, these events are evoked in mid-1641 in order to call attention to Suckling’s flight from England (Suckling sailed for Dieppe on May 6, 1641).47 The physical distance of Suckling from England is therefore exploited as a cogent rationale for the long-distance communication exemplified by this letter exchange. As pamphlet epistolary fiction, Coppy of Generall Lesley’s Letter to Sir John Suckling is rather atypical because Leslie’s letter and S­ uckling’s point-for-point response were placed together in the same pamphlet, even though the men were enemies; usually the correspondents in such fictions were of like mind or shared ideological similarities. The pamphlet instead yokes military adversaries Leslie and Suckling in an unlikely correspondence. It is

30  Epistolary Fiction a fictional letter exchange that could never have occurred, ­considering that while Suckling was in France he was not even in contact with his closest friends.48 In terms of political perspective, Thomas Clayton calls this an antiroyalist pamphlet.49 ­Suckling is indeed attacked by Leslie for many of the behaviors for which Suckling was widely criticized in other pamphlet condemnations. Yet the pamphlet also offers a dialectic in which the two parties “debate.” Leslie is ventriloquized to reiterate the cultural narrative of the dissolute cavalier, referring to Suckling’s effeminacy, his indulgence in delicacies, and a “valour [that] is best displaid in the armes of your Mistresse” (4), while Suckling offers a sustained ­critique of Leslie’s military ethic, in particular condemning Leslie’s incursion into northern England: “I left my cloaths, it is true: they were mine owne: but you in possessing them, deckt your selves with others feathers, by seazing on that which was not your owne” (6 [mispaginated as 9]).50 There may, in fact, be no single ideological standpoint, since Suckling returns insult as good as he gets (and gets in the last word). The pamphlet seems to offer criticism of both men and of what each represents. Perhaps to counter pamphlets critical of Suckling after his flight from England, News from Sir John Sucklin, Being a Relation of His ­Conversion from a Papist to a Protestant … Sent in a Letter to the Lord Conway (1641 / N1002) was published, taking the form of an anonymous news report in epistolary form sent as if from abroad. 51 Suckling and Edward, 2nd Viscount Conway, moved in the same cavalier literary and social circles, and it is likely that Conway served as a patron of a fraternal organization to which Suckling belonged called the Order of the Fancy. 52 In the letter of news, Suckling’s arrival in France, his pleasant reception by the king of France, and Suckling’s conversion to ­Protestantism at the behest of Lady Damaise (who was beloved of Lord Lequeux) are related. The letter continues: Lequeux, jealous of Lady Damaise’s love for Suckling, plotted to kill Suckling. Upon hearing of the plot Suckling and Lady Damaise fled to Spain. A storm split the ship en route, but the couple arrived safely. Lequeux pursued them, accusing them of a plot to murder the king of Spain, and Suckling was handed over to the Inquisition, tortured, but did not recant his beliefs. Meanwhile Lequeux, stabbed with conscience, confessed that his accusations were false. Suckling and Lady Damaise were released, and “are now living at the Hague in Holland, piously and religiously, and [Suckling] grieves at nothing, but that he did the Kingdome of England wrong” ([A4]). Suckling is condemned for wronging “the Kingdome of E ­ ngland” but is otherwise salvaged as virtually a martyr for Protestantism against popery. There is nothing satirical about the story or that suggests an ironic attitude; the accent is on religion rather than on politics. In terms of epistolary fiction, this pamphlet offers a self-contained narrative and is nothing short of a romance in four and a half pages. As for

Epistolary Fiction  31 epistolary conventions such as salutation, subscription, and signature, they are ­absent; rather this letter of news, as if sent across the English Channel, attempts to document the facts of Suckling’s life on the continent. Like Coppy of Generall Lesley’s Letter to Sir John Suckling, the epistolary form is used primarily for a functional persuasive purpose. ­Clayton on this pamphlet says it “may not be entirely fictitious, but there is ­unfortunately nothing to substantiate any of its contents.”53 Bond, however, claims that Newes from Sir John Sucklin was “most shamefully feigned” ([A3]). If we compare the events described in the letter to the circumstances of Suckling’s life after his arrival in France—his likely cool ­reception in Paris and his probable suicide—Newes from Sir John Sucklin appears far more fictional than factual. Other royalists were modeled as treasonous. These include John, 1st Baron Finch, and Bishop John Cosin. The Coppy of a Letter Sent from John Lord Finch, Late Lord Keeper, to His Friend Dr. Cozens (1641 / F1551A) is a letter that Bond also mentions as “most shamefully feigned.”54 Finch, MP and chief justice, supported King Charles’s policies, while in his His Majesties Declaration to All His Loving Subjects of the Causes Which Moved Him to Dissolve the Last Parliament (1640 / 9262) Finch depicted the Commons as “selfish and refusing to compromise”; he was ultimately impeached and fled to the Netherlands in late December 1640.55 Cosin was also hated by Puritans and impeached by Parliament in March 1641 for his alleged popery. 56 Whether or not these men held an authentic correspondence, they are definitively associated in Coppy of a Letter Sent from John Lord Finch as political and religious allies.57 Finch is made to write to Cosin of “The Quotidian familiarity of our Religion” (1) in referring to their Arminian church practices: “had not you sowne such Antichristian seeds of Popish introduction into the Church, you should never have reaped this harvest of misery” (2). Finch writes elsewhere in the letter of when Cosin let him “kisse the Virgin Maryes Picture, and the Popes-head” (4). This pamphlet was possibly published in March 1641 (well after Finch had fled) when Cosin was undergoing examination for impeachment; associating Cosin with Finch linked Cosin to a known agent of Charles, presumed guilty by his flight from England. As Finch puts it in the letter, had he not fled his impeachment charges “they would have put the poore Finch in the Cage, and have made me sing Prick-Song there” (1), punning on birds again when referring to the fact that “I was Eagle-winged, and as soone as I perceived that Limetwigges were layd for me, I did erect my selfe, and by the expansion of my nimble wings escaped those snares into which you are fallen” (2); and when asking Cosin, “Remember me … to Bishop [Matthew] Wren, and bid him straine for it, for he will be made to sing a note above Elie” (3). Indeed, the author ventriloquizing Finch in this pamphlet was cognizant enough to use music references throughout to further the verisimilitude since choral music was Cosin’s specialty. 58

32  Epistolary Fiction Finch, furthermore, refers to events at least as far back as 1635 when Cosin was made Master of Peterhouse at Cambridge, after which time he embellished its chapel and altar, since Finch is made to ask, “do’s your ­ rucifixe remaine? … Chappell retaine its former ornaments? Do’s the C Do’s the Altar stand still?” (2) in order to characterize the religious ­ einemann transgressions of Cosin as long-standing ones. Margot H ­ written deadpan to comments on the ventriloquy in that the letter was “ mimic the pompous tones of the judge himself”—which I think is so. 59 Yet Finch also puns irrepressibly throughout, making himself appear flippant. As for Cosin, he is depicted as a steadfast Catholic who introduced popish innovations. This pamphlet, however, also indicts other individuals besides Cosin and Finch. By having Finch ask Cosin to pass along his acknowledgment to Archbishop William Laud, Bishop Wren, Richard Kilvert, William Abell, and Judge Francis Crawly, the author ties Cosin to these other “public enemies,” all of whom are united in the letter, indicted in supporting, directly or indirectly, royal policy.60 Asking a recipient to pass along acknowledgment to others known to both correspondents was a common epistolary strategy in handwritten letters (meant to save the letter writer time and paper); in print, however, such a usage codes association in a special interest or cabal. This is a standard way in which these epistolary fictions operated in print: they aligned other reviled or dangerous individuals with the correspondents to intensify the propaganda or to extend the denigration—whether the association was genuine or not. Considering that it was published well after Finch had fled, the p ­ amphlet was likely intended principally to indict Cosin, the addressee of the letter, in the midst of his impeachment—though certainly Finch comes in for damning criticism. In the fictitious A Letter from His ­Holiness the Pope to the Most Illustrious Protestant Prince, James Duke of Monmouth (1682 / L1473) only the sender was meant to be demonized while the addressee was intended to appear blameless—though this disparity is rare as far as fictional letters generally go. In still other epistolary fictions both the sender and recipient were intended to be condemned equally, as in The Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere in ­Ireland the Third of October 1641 to Old Father ­[ Robert] Philips (1641 / T2053-A). In other words, in epistolary fictions that ventriloquized real individuals, both sender and recipient were usually marked for denunciation, but the weight of the condemnation could be managed to vilify the sender or the recipient disproportionately to one another. Along with other pamphlets disparaging William Laud after his March 1, 1641, imprisonment, counterfeit letters were published as if by the archbishop. These surround Laud’s resignation of his chancellorship of Oxford, which he did in a genuine letter he wrote to the university in June 1641.61 Laud’s original letter, however, was not published until after three pamphlets appeared: The Coppy of a Letter Sent by

Epistolary Fiction  33 William Laud, Arch-Bishop of Canterburie, to the Universitie of Oxford Wherein He Relates His Present Condition and Resignes the Office of His Chancellourship (1641 / L580), The Copie of a Letter Sent from William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, the 28 of June MDCXLI unto the Universitie of Oxford Specifying His Willingnesse to Resigne His Chancellor-Ship and Withall Deploring His Sad Estate Now in the Time of His Imprisonment (1641 / L581), and A Letter from the ­Archbishop of Canterbury to the University of Oxford, June 28, 1641 (1641 / L589).62 All three pamphlets contain fundamentally the same fictional letter, with L589 including three lines absent from the other two, while L580 features a woodcut of Laud, and none indicating the printer. In the letter, Laud is made to write of himself as being “by few pittied and deplored; the righteous God best knowes the justice of my sufferings” and feeling “that my life is now burthensome unto me” (A2). He also implies that he was a wicked counselor to the king by lamenting, “my self [am] barr’d of my wonted accesse unto the best of Princes” (A2). Laud is, in essence, portrayed as guilty, and he is ventriloquized to acknowledge his guilt. The subtitle of Laud’s authentic The True Copie of a Letter Sent from the Most Reverend William Lord, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, to the University of Oxford When He Resign’d His Office of Chancellour. Published by Occasion of a Base Libell and Forgery That Runs under This Title (Oxford, 1641 / L601) makes clear that the pamphlet is setting the record straight, and the imprint by Leonard Lichfield, the king’s printer in Oxford, is legitimate.63 In his genuine letter, Laud makes no admission of culpability; indeed, he highlights his rectitude: “I was once resolved not to resigne my Place of Chancellour, till I saw the issue of my troubles one way or other. And this resolution I took, partly because I had no reason to desert my Selfe, and occasion the World to think me guilty” (2). It appears that knowledge of Laud’s resignation prompted an ideologue to compose a loaded epistolary confession as if by Laud to condemn him further in the public eye. Laud’s real letter regarding his resignation would never have seen publication were it not for having to defend him from an attack where he seems to admit publically of what he was being accused—in the process proving he was a wicked counselor, a narrative used to characterize many of those close to King Charles. A belated supplement to this group of letters was published in late December 1642, after the first civil war had begun, roughly a year and a half after the others. It is titled A Letter Sent from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury (Now Prisoner in the Tower) to the Vice-Chancellor, Doctors, and the Rest of the Convocation at Oxford (1642, Dec. 29T / L591) with the fiction that it was printed “First at Oxford by Leonard Lichfield.”64 The principal reason behind the publication of this fictional letter sent as if to Oxford University, so long after Laud resigned his chancellorship, was to recall Laud’s association with that city: the prior

34  Epistolary Fiction month, Charles had withdrawn his army to Oxford and established it as his capitol. Laud’s letter picks up some of the attitudes he had expressed in the fictional letter of the previous year, namely, his acceptance of guilt—“I may say with the Psalmist, It was good for me that I was in trouble. And surely I shall so demeane my selfe towards God, my King, and the Common-wealth in this my durance” (4)—and that he ought not to have advised the king, rather counseling those at the university “never to meddle with things above your reach, I meane State affaires … for dangerous it is to meddle with the Councell of Kings” (4) with reference to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey for good measure. Furthermore, Laud admits, “had I been at liberty, and injoyed the gracious eare of my Soveraigne as formerly, surely I had not beene to have had that aspersion cast upon me as the author of this distraction” (6). That is, Laud can now offer sound counsel to his peers: having confessed his misguided intrusions into state affairs, Laud can advise those at Oxford not to “invert … Religion to advance and cherish the present distractions” (6); instead, they should preach peace to the king from the pulpit. Laud is not portrayed as cunning or tyrannical in this letter (indeed, Falconer Madan calls it “a fairly well-written letter, and [the question of accommodation was] a possible subject” on which Laud might have written).65 In other words, the Laud writing this letter is not the Laud that a John Pym or a William Prynne would have constructed—the “subject for r­ idiculous Pamphlets and Ballads” (5) as Laud is made to recognize in the letter; it is, rather, a repentant, submissive Laud who may now duly advise on the need for accommodation. On November 2, 1641, the Lords summoned Robert Philip, Queen Henrietta Maria’s confessor, “touching Matters concerning the State,” and he was committed to the Tower that day.66 He was imprisoned, however, not for receiving a treasonous letter as the title of The Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere in Ireland the Third of ­October 1641 to Old Father Philips, Heere in England, and Now ­Prisone[r] in the Tower, Which Letter Was Intercepted … Kept Private but Now Disclosed, upon Which Old Father Philips Was Committed to the Tower (1641 / T2053-A) states, but because he refused to swear on the English Bible, which “is not a true Bible,” as Philip claimed while at the bar. Historians of Catholicism have observed the letter’s ­fictitiousness—­Joseph Gillow calls it “a clumsy forgery” and Henry Foley “an ­evident forgery”—but our task is to consider why this fiction was printed when it was.67 In the letter, John Stewart, 1st Earl of Traquair, is made to praise Philip, a “constant friend to Rome, whose pious charity, and just actions, by Hereticks are accounted as abominations” ([3]). Traquair was a longtime enemy of both the English and Scottish Parliaments, the latter forcing his removal as Charles’s treasurer in July 1641, while the former body alleged in 1640 that Traquair was managing a papist conspiracy to lead the Prince of Wales to Catholicism

Epistolary Fiction  35 (making his tie to Philip all the more probable).68 The circumstance of Philip’s imprisonment, however, was the immediate inspiration for the pamphlet, as the fake letter suggests that Philip was involved in planning the Irish Rebellion—and for this reason Philip was thrust into prison. Evidently, Philip was called into the Lords “to reveal what he knew touching some intended Treason” (that is, the Irish Rebellion, the news of which was received by Parliament just the day before), but Philip refused to swear on the English Bible and was sent to the Tower for contempt. The letter bears the date October 3, well before the rebellion had begun, to imply that Philip had foreknowledge of the approaching insurrection. As Traquair writes to Philip, “The Plot which now long since, I gave you private notice of, goeth forward very well” (4). Moreover, like many other pamphlets of the time, Coppy of a ­L etter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere participates in circulating atrocity narratives by having Traquair write that the Irish have “ ­ already slaine and pillaged many Hereticks … privately” and their plan is “to put all the Hereticks to fire and sword” (5).69 The pamphlet seems to have been composed by an individual bent on forging an association between the Irish Rebellion and Philip’s imprisonment to imply Philip’s involvement; as in other epistolary fictions, a genuine occurrence ­(Philip’s imprisonment) was explained through a fictional ­rationale (Philip’s involvement in the Irish Rebellion). Philip, as the Catholic queen’s confessor, was indeed harried by Parliament and sometimes attacked in pamphlet literature—an intercepted letter printed in his name is evaluated in Chapter 4.

Foiling Catholic and Royalist Conspiracies Because sixteenth- and seventeenth-century postal delivery systems were often ad hoc and sometimes unreliable, letters were commonly misdirected, lost, or even intercepted. Interception was therefore exploited as a rhetorical strategy in constructing print letters, where the fact of interception codes a letter’s content as a sincere and reliable indicator of the letter writer’s thoughts, intentions, and emotions. The broadside A True Copie of a Letter Sent from Mr. William Bulwarke, a Grand Recusant in His Majesties Army, to a Friend of His, One Mr. John Greenall … [Which] Was Intercepted, and in Which Is Manifestly Expressed the Horrible Designes of the Papists and Cavaliers for the Surprizing of the Citie of London and the Destruction of the Parliament (1642, Nov. 19T / B5459) exemplifies such a usage. It is almost certainly a fiction as both the original letter and its reply were intercepted by an especially duplicitous bearer. There is an overemphasis on interception in the ­correspondence to demonstrate that even though letter writer and recipient feared interception, the designs to be effected were too urgent to await face-to-face consultation. Bulwarke writes,

36  Epistolary Fiction Sir, I had well hoped, there should not have been any need of sending any more letters to our friends in London, but in the stead of your enjoying me by paper, that wee should have enjoyed one another in person, where our loves should have feared neither interception nor suspition; howsoever I have ventured this last by the safest hand I could, and I hope it will arrive as safe as it is meant. Once he received the letter, Greenall responds, Sir, I am most sorry in hope to receive you, to receive your Letter: And I more wonder, that you shou’d write now to me by such a ­Messenger in so dangerous a time, whose face before I never saw, nor ever heard of his name; but because that you are pleased to ­repose so much trust in him, I have done so too, and as neere as I can, to give you satisfaction to the materials of your Letter. A characteristic of many of these fake conspiracy letters is a design that is, at best, vaguely delineated: invasion of London and the destruction of Parliament. The Gunpowder Plot is a frequent point of reference in such letters. Bulwarke refers to news that “the vaults and close wayes under ground, from S. Pauls unto Westminster, are discovered unto the inhabitants, who have made it knowne unto the Parliament,” but his correspondent berates him for committing the secret to a letter: “I heare nothing of the discovery of any vaults, and I much wonder that you would intrust so great a secret unto paper, and from such a bearer.” The fictional A Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard of the City of London Wherein Is Discovered a Most Desperate and Bloody Act to Be Performed on Divers Good Ministers and Their Congregations (1643, Feb. 28 / L1) might have acquired legitimacy by association with an authentic intercepted letter. The Commons tied together in the same order to print Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard with the genuine intercepted letter printed as A Letter of Dangerous Consequence from Sergeant Major Ogle to Sir Nicholas Crisp (1643, Feb. 27 / O187).70 Thomas Ogle’s letter was apparently about the purchase of land, but some in the Commons claimed that Ogle “darkly expresses some strange Design” in the letter. Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard is likewise about a design discovered just in time by way of the intercepted ­letter. The letter writer writing from Oxford claims to be representing the thinking of many of the Lords now with the king, and the plot suggested is a massive slaughter of Puritans while they are attending services at several churches in London and its environs, to “slay man, woman, and childe” (6) in the parishes identified. The letter writer is implied C ­ atholic— he writes of those “of our Faith” in opposition to those “Puritanickt rogues” (5)—while the recipient appears to be a like-minded member of ­Parliament. The fictitious letter writer also repeatedly expresses his

Epistolary Fiction  37 animosity toward the houses by referring to their enemies as “those Roundheadly Rebels and Traytors” (4), “Parliament Rebells” (4), “the Roundheadly Puritanickt rogues” (5), and so on. The royalist–Catholic letter writer, then, is constructed as bloodthirsty and cruel, advocating the cessation of hostilities and negotiations for peace during the month of February as an opportunity for royalists to increase their aggression. Brought to the attention of the Commons by Miles Corbet and though ordered to be published by that body, this epistle nevertheless features several hallmarks of a fictional intercepted letter. Its lack of conventional superscription and signature—the names of the letter writer and recipient are not inscribed (it is signed only “L.”)—is explained rather redundantly by the letter writer as a security measure: “I have forborn to write my ordinary hand, or to write my name or yours, or to set my seale, for to prevent any inconvenience that may arise by it” (8); but by electing not to name names, the author of this fictional letter abrogated the need for further investigation into particular culprits, since a broad fear was meant to be created by the publication of this letter rather than an explicit accusation of specific individuals. Its postscript is also questionable. In it, the letter writer asks his recipient to “remember my love and service to those Martyrs in the Tower, my Lords Grace of C ­ anterbury [William Laud], [and] my Lord of Ely [Matthew Wren]” (7), which is the epistolary convention of a postscript transformed in print to code the correspondents’ Catholic sympathies. To ensure recognition of Catholic plotting, the author gestures to the Gunpowder Plot: the letter writer asks his recipient to “convey the sixteen barrells of powder which is at your house to Redding, and the two and twenty that be at our friends house to Oxford” (5). The newsbook Continuation of Certaine Speciall … Passages from … Parliament followed up Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard; ­after ­reprinting the entire letter except for the postscript, the n ­ ewsbook ed­ ilitary aid is itorializes on a passage in the pamphlet where foreign m mentioned: “whereas here is mention made of many that come daily to them [the royalists] out of France, and Ireland, It seemes that there is more confidence in forraigne nations, and such as are profest enemies to the whole kingdome”—tying together the foreign invasion and Catholic conspiracy narratives.71 Perfect Diurnall also reflects on this pamphlet, adding, “in regard of divers letters which have been lat[e]ly intercepted, discovering more treacherous plots against the Citie … and for the better keeping of their courts of guard,” public works and fortifications have been ordered to protect the city.72 If Perfect Diurnall’s report is accurate, epistolary fictions such as this—albeit one approved by the Commons as authentic—were persuasive enough to generate a genuine municipal counterreaction.73 Discovered letters were also invented. Bond writes in Poets Knavery Discovered that “Lunsfords Letters found one at Temple Barre, and another

38  Epistolary Fiction in St. Pauls Church, were both feigned” ([A3v]). The second publication is A Letter of High Consequence … Directed to Colonell Lunsford, Scattered in the Church of Saint Paul (1642 / L1573). Bond is correct in his evaluation of this pamphlet, which was probably printed around mid-January, a few weeks after the unpopular Thomas Lunsford was dismissed as Lieutenant of the Tower—quite possibly immediately after his arrest on January 13. The letter is vaguely subscribed, “G. ­Sartwell, Redmond, / your friends, E.T. W.S. M.O. / joyne” (3) and spurious “Articles of high consequence against Colonell Lunsford” follow the letter. The letter writers encourage Lunsford to establish “the Catholicke faith and supremacy of the Church of Rome” and remind Lunsford “as for our friends, we have a faulkon, and pepper is very dear to us, (you understand me)” (2) in a transparent code of MPs ­Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, and John Culpepper to indict them in the ­conspiracy.74 This pamphlet telegraphs the fact that secret matters are exposed by the publication of the letter. One writer’s estimation of the pamphlet is that it “is evidently one of the libels, fabricated at this time in order to lower Sir Thomas in public estimation, and to irritate the populace against him.”75 The other fake letter to which Bond refers is the discovered letter ­contained in The Parliaments Care for the Citie of London in Purging the Tower from Conspiracies, with the Relation of a Box That Was Found Neere the Temple, Wherein Was Inclosed a Letter from Tyrone, the Arch-Rebell in Ireland, to Colonel Lunsford, Late Lieutenant of the Tower (1642 / E2131, P510B).76 The pamphlet is obviously pro-­ Parliament considering the title, and in it a fictional letter is placed in the pen of Phelim O’Neill.77 O’Neill was an Irish insurgent, involved in the Ulster uprising, and “often held responsible for many of the post-rising excesses.”78 By inserting the fake letter into a larger narrative of imagined papist plotting and treachery by way of authentic current events, the author of this pamphlet precisely contextualizes the letter, which itself is prefaced by a crucial frame story: Their [the papists’] plots had once come almost to a ripe perfection, when they had got their Arch-conduct Lunsford to bee Lieutenant of the Tower: but the Citie having suspition of some designe against them, caused an Insurrection, and violently displaced him from his Lieutenantship …. Tyrone[, ] his [Lunsford’s] great friend in Ireland, hearing that hee was misplaced, did write a letter to this effect, which followeth, which was found neer the Temple. (A2v) In his letter, O’Neill encourages Lunsford to “resolve to vindicate the absurd abuse of this Citie” (A3) and will send Lunsford assistance to allow him to avenge himself. The pamphlet concludes with an end frame to the epistolary fiction:

Epistolary Fiction  39 This letter being found, and the superscription read, perceiving that it was directed to Colonell Lunsford, they began to suspect ­something in the same, in regard that he was a Papist, and of a malicious and bloudy minde … wherefore they broke it open immediately, and reading such treacherous lines included therein … they by the consent of some friends, presented the same to the Parliament, where it was read to the stupendious amazement of them all. (A3v) There is no record, however, of such a letter read in the Commons or Lords. The frame story also indicates that after Parliament learned of powder and ammunition being transported out of the Tower, it ordered the new Lieutenant of the Tower, John Byron, to attend the House; he refused saying “hee would serve but one Master [King Charles], unlesse hee sent for him that placed him there, hee would not come” (A3v). The Commons’ order for Byron to attend and Byron’s response, did, in fact, occur. After the House was informed that “Ordnance and ­A mmunition [were] going out, and extraordinary Provision coming in” to the Tower, Byron was ordered to appear; Byron responded “That he was very desirous to attend the Houses of Parliament according to the Order; but he conceived he could not come, without his Majesty’s Leave first obtained.”79 Like Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere … to Old Father Philips, Parliaments Care for the Citie offers a complex ­interweaving of factual events and an imagined rationale for them. ­Byron was called to the House not because he refused to answer on the powder and ammunition supposed to have been taken out of the Tower, but rather because Parliament intended to recall him from that post (this epistolary fiction can be dated to soon after January 12, 1642, the date that Byron returned his answer). The reason Byron was ordered to attend Parliament, then, had nothing to do with a supposed O’Neill– Lunsford conspiracy. Parliament did, in fact, seem to fear some sort of threat, as it issued an order for additional guards “to defend the Tower from Surprisal”; but this pamphlet specifically identifies the source of that threat by way of a fictional discovered letter.80 In March 1628, a Jesuit enclave was discovered in Clerkenwell. There was nothing especially treasonable in the papers confiscated.81 This ­discovery, however, was put to religiopolitical use that same year: as Martin Havran observes, “someone, probably Charles, instructed ­Principal Secretary Sir John Coke to draw up a forged letter that was slipped in with the correspondence.”82 Havran’s source, John Nichols, identifies the author as MP from Calne, John Maynard.83 This letter (it was never published at the time but had significant circulation in manuscript) was put to ideological use again in 1643 when it was printed as The Copy of a Letter Addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels Found

40  Epistolary Fiction among Some Jesuites Taken at London about the Third Yeere of His Majesties Raigne (1643, June 5T / M1454), written is as if by a Jesuit to indict all Jesuits in ongoing conspiracy: “Our superlative designe is, to worke the Protestants as well as the Catholikes to welcome in the Conquerour” (5).84 The letter is signed “J. M.,” initials given only in the printed copy of the letter.85 William Prynne later included this letter in Hidden Workes of Darkenes Brought to Publike Light (1645 / P3973) when a copy in manuscript was found among William Laud’s papers.86 It was also reprinted in 1679 (C6169) at the height of the Popish Plot hysteria, and Samuel Blackerby inserted it into his An Historical Account of Making the ­Penal Laws by the Papists against the Protestants (1689 / B3069), printed during the 1688–1689 Revolution. It serves therefore as another example of a print letter redux, with the very force of repeated printings seeming to signify both its factual accuracy and its historical validity. The letter exemplifies the belief that Jesuits used letters as a means of clandestine, subversive communication. The title alone of The ­Jesuites Intrigues, with the Private Instructions of That Society to Their ­Emissaries (1669 / J717) speaks to these assumptions. Jesuit letter ­writing also inevitably took cabalistic forms: “all their Letters must be superscribed, and subscribed without any name, but only with a single Letter, or some dark Character.”87 These beliefs allowed (fictional) letters without any identifiable senders or recipients to seem all the more likely to have been written by Jesuits. It took but a small leap of ­imagination to draw in turn a parallel between Jesuit letter writing and royalist letter writing by virtue of a shared usage of ciphers, figures, and characters. Marchamont Nedham, taking the role of a royalist in The Manifold Practises and Attempts of the Hamiltons … Discovered in an Intercepted Letter Written from a Malignant Here in London to His Friend in Scotland. The Letter Is Directed Thus on the Back, For the Much Honoured, 21. 53. 7. 10. 19. 72. 67. 40. (1648, June 6 T / N396), titled his pamphlet in accordance with the perception that the use of cipher was an ordinary practice in royalist letter writing.88 George ­Digby’s request for a set of ciphers in his letter to the queen of January 21, 1642—a letter intercepted and later printed—might have sparked this association, especially considering the issue the author of An ­Answer to the Lord George Digbies Apology for Himself (1643, Mar. 2T / A3421) made out of the request (41); but it was the king’s use of cipher in his correspondence printed beginning in 1643 that fully energized the association.89 Prynne in the second edition of his Romes Master-Peece (1644 / P4056) makes the royalist–Catholic cipher tie crystal clear: “The Popes Legat useth a threefold Character or Cipher; One wherewith he communicates with all Nuncioes” and others, adding in the margin, “His Majesty perchance hath learnt to write Characters from him, as appeares by some of his late intercepted Letters” (24).

Epistolary Fiction  41

Parliament and Epistolary Fiction, 1642 In the efforts that the Commons and Lords took in controlling i­llicit ­publication, print letters figured significantly, especially between ­February and June 1642 when several attempts to locate the authors and printers of fake letters are on record. One of the first was the Commons’ order of February 19, 1642, That the Printing of a Letter pretended to be sent by Mr. Speaker to the King’s Majesty, be referred to the Committee for Printing: And they are to think of some Way how, by the Example of some notorious Delinquents in this kind, others may be deterred from this inordinate and insufferable Licentiousness of Printing.90 The publication is Mr. Speakers Letter to the Kings Most Excellent ­M ajestie, Febr. 16, 1641, Concerning the Great Affayres and State of the Kingdome (1642 / L1076). The result of the investigation into the publication of this fictional letter, if any, was not recorded in the ­Commons Journal, but others were pursued more rigorously. Roughly a month later, the Lords took notice of The Queen’s ­M ajesties Gracious Answer to the Lord Digbies Letter (1642 / H1458) supposedly averred by John Browne, clerk of the House of Commons: “there is printed and published abroad a supposed Letter, which the Queen should write to the Lord Digby, in Answer to his Letter, which feigned Letter is scandalous to Her Majesty.”91 This is a fictional r­ eply to a genuine January 21 letter of George Digby to Henrietta Maria. Digby’s letter was printed unofficially in Two Letters of Note, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queene, the Other of a Late Overthrow Which the ­English Gave the Rebells in Ireland (1642 / B4779-A)—a letter ­intercepted by Parliament and used along with other evidence to impeach Digby of treason on February 26.92 The fictional reply noticed by the Lords, The Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer, is as if Henrietta Maria’s response from Canterbury and is dated February 3 (Canterbury was on her route to Holland to which she departed on February 23).93 The Lords did not take notice of Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer until March 12 because this pamphlet was not in fact published until after the queen’s arrival in Holland and after the articles of Digby’s impeachment had been moved. Digby writes in his genuine intercepted letter to the queen published in Two Letters of Note, I shall not adventure to write unto your Majestie with freedome, but by expresses, or till such time as I have a Cypher, which I ­beseech your Majestie to vouchsafe mee. At this time therefore I shall onely let your Majestie know where the humblest and most

42  Epistolary Fiction faithfull servant you have in the world is, here at Middleborough, where I shall remaine in the privatest way I can, till I receive instructions how I shall serve the King and your Majestie in these parts. If the King betake himselfe to a safe place, where he may avow and protect his servants from rage and violence, for from Justice I will never ­implore it. I shall then live in impatience and in misery till I waite upon you. But if after all he hath done of late, he shall betake ­himselfe to the easiest and compliantest wayes of accommodation, I am confident, that then I shall serve him more by my absence, than by all my industry: and it will be a comfort to mee in all calamities, if I cannot serve you by my actions, that I may doe it in some kinde by my sufferings for your sake, having (I protest to God) no measure of happinesse or misfortune in this world, but what I derive from your Majesties value of my affection and fidelitie. (A2–A2v; B4779) The queen responds in the fictional Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer, We respectively entertain great alacritie in Our joyfull mind, to r­ eceive the undoubted fidelitie, which you expressed to Us in your last Epistle. You may boldly adventure to write unto Us with ­freedome, as well as by expresses, the time being come that you have a Cypher, which I vouchsafe to confer upon you; I am exceeding joyfull to know, that the humblest, and most faithfull Servant I have in the World is now at Middleborough; where (We desire) you may remain in the privatest way you can, till you receive farther instructions how you may more faithfully serve the King, and Us in those parts. The King having betaken himself to a safe place, where he doth, and will avow, and protect his Servants from rage, and ­violence (for from Justice you cannot implore it) you may then live in patience, and joy, having the freedome to wait upon Us. But he having betaken himselfe to the easiest and compliantest way of accomodation, confirm your confidence, that then you may serve him more by your absence, then by all your industry: and let it be a comfort to you in all calamities, that you may serve Us by your Actions only, and in no kind by your Sufferings for Our sake: that you may have no measure of misfortune, but happinesse in this World, which you may derive from Our gracious value of your affection, and fidelitie. ([A2v]) In her letter, the queen reiterates, phrase for phrase and idea for idea, the content of a letter that was used in part to charge Digby with treason. Mary Anne Everett Green, editor of Henrietta Maria’s correspondence, recognizes it as a fake letter and comments, “The ingenuity of parliamentary wit cannot have been very severely taxed in the concoction of the …

Epistolary Fiction  43 letter …. Henrietta Maria was not … in the habit of echoing, parrot-like, the very words of her correspondents.”94 However, the publication of a letter appearing to contain the queen’s reception of and acquiescence to Digby’s letter, phrased almost identically to it, could do nothing but recall the content of Digby’s letter and damn the queen in association with Digby just after he was impeached—a tactic especially purposeful since certain members of Parliament had discussed impeaching the queen in December 1641 for conspiring with the Irish rebels, suggesting that the king’s questionable actions and policies were “due to the advice of the queen.”95 Consider the second article of impeachment against Digby, which includes damning portions of his letter—and which, in turn, has the apparent consent of the queen as given in Queen’s Majesties ­Gracious Answer: That the said Geo. Lord Digby … falsly, maliciously, and t­ raiterously, laboured to raise a Jealousy and Dissention between the King and his People; and to possess his Majesty that he could not live with Safety of his Person amongst them; and did thereupon traitorously endeavour to persuade his Majesty to betake himself to some Place of Strength for his Defence.96 Digby’s genuine letter to the queen and the queen’s fictional response were also collected together (along with another fictional letter as if from King Louis XIII of France to King Charles) in Admirable and Notable Things of Note (1642 / A586). It is a gathering of real and fake letters ­together, published as propaganda, reemphasizing the strong ties between the queen, Digby, and the king of France, brother to Henrietta Maria. The author of Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer may be John Bond—the same John Bond who had, ironically enough, railed against fictions in print in Poets Knavery Discovered a few months before. The record is ambiguous: Bond was ordered before the Lords on March 22 to answer for Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer, but when he was examined on March 29 it was on a different letter as if from the queen printed as a broadside, A Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague in Holland to the Kings Majesty Residing at Yorke, Sent from The Hague by One of Her Majesties Gentlemen Ushers, March 19, 1641 (1642 / H1456).97 In the letter, the queen is made to write that “the Feares and Jealousies fomented betwixt your Parliament and your Majesty, have at the first audience affrighted us, to our great griefe and astonishment” and that “God in his good time will right all injuries reflected on you,” which of course accentuates the discord between king and Parliament. Since the letter also refers to discord between the States General and William II, Prince of Orange, the letter was scandalous to the States Ambassador, as well.98 The queen is also ventriloquized to state “that our Cousin the King of Denmarke is set forward with a Fleet for England, his intent

44  Epistolary Fiction God knowes: That our royall Brother likewise the King of France, with the King of Spaine, and the States of Venice are in a preparation of a great Navie,” implying that these forces are to invade England. Michael Mendle characterizes the letter as “a transparent fabrication, fit[ting] in rather too well with recent information.”99 Bond’s response to the Lords upon examination was that he being a poor Scholar, and [having] nothing else to live upon, did make and compose the said pretended Letter; but said, it was at the Request and Instigation of … John Wilson the Printer …. he spake about the making of this Paper; and Wilson persuaded him to do it, telling it would be a profitable Business for him.100 Bond was punished by imprisonment and pillory, and when released printed The Poets Recantation, Having Suffered in the Pillory the 2 of Aprill, 1642 (1642 / B3581), wherein he confesses he was “found culpable in one peculiar Letter” (1) but apparently not of both. Bond stated in the upper house that his reason for composing the letter was solely for profit—a rationale for printing letters we have already seen with those attributed to Strafford. Royalists, in fact, used the narrative that Parliament profited by printing fake letters and other documents to condemn Parliament as avaricious. John Taylor exemplifies the narrative in A Letter Sent to London from a Spie at Oxford … to His Honourable and Worshipfull Friends M. Pym, M. Martin &c. (Oxford, 1643 / T474) wherein Taylor takes the role of a creature of the Puritan MPs: If money do begin to wax low, you know the old wayes to raise it, frame Letters of imaginary Fleets, Armes, Ammunition, and Armies; from any forraigne Prince or State, ‘tis no matter from who, the very fear of which newes will bring in money with a mischiefe … and be sure it be printed, and published to the publique view. (13)101 Royalist newsbook Mercurius Aulicus also rehearses the narrative of the greed of members of Parliament, profiting from printing the fictional letters they invented: But rather then they will want, the Members [of Parliament] will recur to all their old shifts, and pen Letters and intercept them both in a day, as the last week (forsooth) certain Letters were brought into the pretended House … whereupon the pretended House made an Order (for the conceit was made on purpose to be published) … which if it bring them in 1000.l. the Members have then the end of their Labours.102

Epistolary Fiction  45 During his interrogation by the Lords, Bond also confessed “That one Richard Broome was the Author of … the feigned Letter from the King of France.” The pamphlet to which Bond is referring is A Royal Letter Sent from the King of France to the King of England (1642 / L3098, R2133E); and, if one trusts Bond’s allegation, its author may be the playwright Richard Brome.103 The Lords ordered Broome to appear to answer these charges, but there is no record in the journal of his attendance. In the letter, Louis XIII is made to sympathize with the difficulties Charles is having both with the Irish rebels and with Parliament. He denies that he “rejoyce[d] at the disloyalty of Ireland” and that he “instigate[d] … those rebels with a calumnious suggestion to proceed in their bloudy Tyrannie, as if they should depend in expectation of our anxiliary assistance” (A2v); he hopes that Charles will “expedite and animate your Parliament” to ensure the future security of the Realme: for procrastination in State matters doth either discourage some in the same Nation, whose imminent grievances, are not easied [i.e., eased], or at least doth animate ­forraigne Enemies to perfect any conspiracie against a Kingdome. ([A3v–A4])104 There is no doubt that where Louis refers to foreign invasion that the author intended readers to understand that Louis himself offered such a threat, and it was a common belief that because of the shared religion of the French and the Irish rebels that France might come to the rebels’ aid.105 In fact, Louis’s letter, as I have indicated, was gathered together with Digby’s letter to Queen Henrietta and with the queen’s fictional response in Admirable and Notable Things of Note. By fixing a fictional letter of Louis XIII to one of the letters used to impeach Digby and to a fictional one that pretends the queen will assent to any secret scheming Digby proposes, the compiler implicates Louis’s letter as a disingenuous one—for instance, in his protestations that he does not support the Irish rebels contrary to public report (A2–A2v). The common narrative tying Royal Letter Sent from the King of France and Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague together is indeed the threat of foreign invasion. Mark Stoyle observes that fear of foreign invasion was epidemic in early 1642—from Calvinist Scots to Protestant Danes to Catholic Spaniards and Frenchmen, so “By the time that Charles I established himself at York in March 1642, many English people had come to believe that hordes of foreign enemies were poised to invade.”106 On March 22, 1642, the States Ambassador “complain[ed] of a scandalous feigned Letter printed, of one William Newton … which said Letter reflected much upon the Honour of the Prince of Orange” since, among other things, the letter writer suggests that even though it is “seemingly composed,” there is potential for conflict between the

46  Epistolary Fiction prince and the States General: the “Prince hath all the Armie [under his control], so that wee are not yet heere quite cleer of all surmizes of after-­claps.”107 This is the broadside The Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton, One of the Gentlemen Ushers unto the Lady ­Elizabeth, unto His Brother Francis Newton, Esq., One of the Foure Squires of the Body to His Majestie, from The Hage (1642 / N1075). No William Newton served Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, and he likely did not exist.108 William Umfreville (or Humphreyville) appears to be responsible for this fake letter, which shares some content with Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague.109 Besides its offense to the States Ambassador, the broadside affronted some in Parliament: although Speaker William Lenthall asserted that the letter “did not at all concern us,” Simonds D’Ewes argued that the letter “did in particular lay an aspersion upon this house that we had sent over espials to watch the queen” since the letter writer states that “the Queene is very narrowly watched here … and I durst pawne my life the Parliament hath some agents here meerly to attend that businesse; and three of them are in my Conscience, L.O. S.S. I.H.”110 These were taken by D’Ewes to represent actual individuals (rather than left vague merely to raise suspicion) since D’Ewes refers to the same phenomenon occurring in an unrelated pamphlet where Oliver Cromwell was hidden behind the initials O. C. When Umfreville was finally sentenced to the Gatehouse, he was designated as “a papist” by D’Ewes, making the purpose of the letter, at least as far as D’Ewes was concerned, quite clear.111 Umfreville also appears to be responsible for a related fictional ­letter. Umfreville took on another role and composed A Letter Written upon Occasion from the Low-Countries (1642 / L176), written as if by “Charles de la Fin, Page unto the young Prince of Orange, unto James de La Fin his brother, Secretary unto the Duke of Vallette” (1). Umfreville is given as translator of the letter on the title page, but D’Ewes reported to the chair of the printing committee John White that “one [letter] as sent from Charles de La Fin … by which false and scandalous rumors were spread as if there were differences between the States of the Low Countries and the Prince of Orange” was prepared by Umfreville.112 The narrative perpetuated by this fake letter, as in Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague and Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton, is that if there is discord between the prince and the States General in Holland (mirroring the division between king and Parliament in England), then the prince must perforce side with Charles—and this includes the army commanded by the prince.113 In Letter Written upon Occasion from the Low-Countries, the letter writer reports the massive support the army commanders offered to the prince and their oath to serve him. “Charles de la Fin” then moves toward the conclusion of the letter tellingly. After noting that Denmark, France, and Spain will support the prince, he concludes “it is more honourable for a Prince to be

Epistolary Fiction  47 tyed in some ceremonious concernments unto a Monarch, then to any other, either by Democraticall, or Aristocraticall Government” (3–4). A number of cultural narratives crystallized in 1642, and many of the fictional letters composed during this time reflected these narratives. Several revolved around the narrative of widespread Catholic conspiracy: Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard, Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere, Letter of High Consequence, ­Parliaments Care for the Citie, and the “letter to a great lady” included in the ­Strafford pamphlets. Others such as Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague, Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton, and Letter Written upon Occasion from the Low-Countries concerned the threat of ­comprehensive foreign invasion, while still others ventriloquizing Laud and the queen developed the narrative of the king’s evil counselors. Again, these narratives were contestable: while Parliament argued that the wicked counsel of the queen, Laud, Digby, and others was misleading the king, royalists insisted that Parliament was rife with traitors; while some members of Parliament declared that the royalists were engaged in a pervasive Catholic conspiracy, royalists burnished their Protestant credentials and labeled it a fabrication. In his defense to Parliament explaining why he attempted to take Hull for the king in April 1642, Francis Wortley asks some penetrating questions about fiction and fact in the formation of cultural narratives when discussing two pamphlets that influenced his decision: The Danes Plot Discovered against This Kingdome (1642 / W157) and Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague—both of which are fictional: Besides the booke directed to be printed and published by the ­ onourable Houses of Parliament, called the Danes plot, subscribed h by the Clerke of the Parliament … and another to his Majesty of some intelligence from Holland, concerning the Danish intentions [Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague], his Majesty protesting against the knowledge of these, we cannot but give credit both to his Majesty, and to the intelligence, and consequently be sensible both of his Majesties, and our dangers: these I say, were just grounds, of and for our fears as wel of Forraigne, as domestique dangers; if they were true, how are th[e]y lessened? if not why are they pretended and put upon us with such charge? besides, admit it be publick stocke, are we not sharers in the publick?114 Danes Plot was never, in fact, ordered by Parliament to be printed, as the imprimatur of clerk John Browne on the pamphlet is spurious, while Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague was judged a forgery by Parliament in late March.115 Granted, Wortley might have been using the pamphlets disingenuously to legitimize the attempt on Hull; yet Wortley’s commentary speaks both to indeterminate reports and to the

48  Epistolary Fiction cultural narratives within what he calls the “publick stocke,” narratives formed by the initiation and perpetuation of gossip, report, and news, be it true or false. In this case, both reports were printed but both turned out to be fictional. A letter of William, 5th Baron Paget, appearing as the broadside The Copie of a Letter Sent from the Right Honourable the Lord Paget unto the Honourable House of Parliament Declaring the Reasons of His ­Departure from the Parliament unto the Kings Most Excellent Majesty at Yorke (1642 / P170-A) was supposed by Parliament to be counterfeit, quite possibly for political reasons.116 On June 20 A Copy of a printed Letter pretended to be sent from the Lord ­Pagett unto the honourable House of Parliament, was read: And It was Ordered, That Hugh Perry, for whom it was printed, be forthwith summoned; and that the Letter itself be referred to the Committee for Informations: Who are to examine the Truth of this Business.117 The same day that the Commons noticed the publication, the Lords ­ordered it burned.118 In his brief letter, Paget declares simply that although he was a zealous reformer of church and commonwealth (he was instrumental in impeaching Strafford and Laud), once Paget found “a Preparation of Armes against the KING, under the shadow of Loyaltie [he writes in the letter], I rather resolved, to obey a good Conscience.” Paget had indeed joined Charles at Oxford on June 14, 1642, and it is perhaps no surprise that the letter was noticed initially not by the Lords but by the Commons: the pamphlet was especially damaging to the lower house because Paget was, until recently, an MP active against royal policy.119 But this letter is not, in fact, a fictional one; John S­ utton asserts that King Charles required Paget to put his submission in writing and had it published.120 Parliament was no doubt aggravated by the ­publication of this letter, and it was of course in its interest to see it as a fake letter since Paget’s defection, according to one contemporary ­observer, is “a great discountenance to the Parliament party.”121 Perhaps this is a case in which fictionality was intentionally maneuvered as a tactic to deflect the embarrassing turncoating of an MP. The Lords had it burned, but this likely stemmed not merely from outrage, as Sutton claims, but rather because to burn the broadside would align it with books deemed scandalous or counterfeit—generally, erroneous and untruthful publications. That there is no further word on this publication in the Commons or Lords Journals, and that the examination of Perry was not recorded, suggests either that the letter was subsequently found to be authentic or that the two houses’ gestures to indict the letter as fictional was all that was ever intended. A letter supposedly by another deserter of Parliament, George Goring, serves as a counterpoint to Paget’s genuine letter of defection. Goring is

Epistolary Fiction  49 made to write as if to the king, the letter published roughly a week ­after Goring betrayed Parliament by declaring Portsmouth for the king in early August 1642. The letter appears to be fictitious as it has no record of interception and no authentication in any contemporary testimony or subsequent history of the period. It appeared in A Relation of the Sundry Occurrences in Ireland … [with] the True Copy of a Letter Sent from Colonell Goring to His Majesty, Which Letter Was Intercepted by the Way and Now Published (1642, Aug. 13T / R872) and in the newsbook Perfect Diurnall, where it is neither marked as an intercepted letter nor editorialized upon.122 In the first half of the letter, Goring is ventriloquized to offer to Charles assurances of his loyalty and suggests the king locate his forces in a specific—though in the letter, undisclosed— site. The letter’s general purpose seems to be to portray the erstwhile parliamentary colonel as a dyed-in-the-wool royalist. Although many MPs were shocked at Goring’s betrayal as recorded, for instance, by D’Ewes—“The news [of Goring declaring Portsmouth for the king] so staggered the hot spirits in both houses [who had initially put confidence in him] as they scarce knew what counsel to take”—the letter does not portray Goring as duplicitous or treacherous.123 Rather, the second half of the letter is fulsome, where Goring is made to purple his prose in writing to Charles of “the flower of your English Chivalry,” assuring him that “divine assistance shall inthronize Your Majesty againe,” and complimenting him as “the most puissant Monarch of any Prince that ever swayd the Scepter in these Occidentall Europian Iles” ([A4v]), so that by the close of the letter the excessive compliment becomes courtier satire. In other words, Goring characterizes himself as a bona fide royalist since he is demonstrating the traits of a profligate cavalier by writing to the king in such an affected fashion.

Ventriloquizing Popes Letters placed in the pens of popes were common epistolary fiction in the seventeenth century. Determining whether a fictional letter portrays the pope as dangerous or laughable is, in some cases, quite subjective, however. The straightforward manner in which Pope Innocent XI is made to threaten James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, in Letter from His Holiness the Pope to the Most Illustrious Protestant Prince, James Duke of Monmouth (1682 / L1473) may nevertheless be characterized as the overwrought (hence absurd, ridiculous) raging of a tyrannical pope; if the imperiousness or fulmination of a ventriloquized victim appears too exaggerated, the letter shades into a satirical letter of ludicrous self-­ condemnation. I handle what I consider these sorts of letters by popes and others in Chapter 2. Popes were sometimes ventriloquized to correspond with fellow ­Catholics. Still Worse Newes from Ireland … with the Copy of a Letter

50  Epistolary Fiction Sent from the Pope to the Rebels in Ireland (1641 / S5555) contains a short letter, ostensibly from Pope Urban VIII to the Irish rebels, preceded by news and followed by exhortation—one of many pamphlets published in late 1641 to demonstrate the brutality of the Irish rebels.124 Like other fictional print letters, this one employs a framework—though not a frame narrative per se as in Parliaments Care for the Citie—in order to further prejudice reaction to the letter. In this case, the framework consists of news accounts that reveal the successes of the rebels; it ends with the report that “The papists and rebels doe daily receive ­encouragement from the Popes Letters” (A3). In his letter (translated from the Latin, as the title page states), Urban VIII urges the Irish r­ ebels to ­“Banish from your hearts (toward them) all compassion …. Thaw their frozen zeale with tormenting wild-fire, and study your braines daily to invent instruments of Tortures; for it is piety to revenge our cause” (A3v). In the overall scheme of the pamphlet, the epistolary fiction was inserted in order to rouse “True and bold English spirits … [to] Fight for the Truth” (A3v, [A4]) and against the Irish rebels; the author clearly leads readers far from news and into ideology, asking readers to “strive against Popery: so should Truth flourish, and we be happy” ([A4]). Like many other pamphlets printed after the Irish Rebellion began, this one reiterates the narrative of cruelty (both Irish and papal) as if in the pope’s own words to the rebels. A Copie of a Letter Written from His Holinesse Court at Rome to His Grace of Canterburies Palace Now in the Tower (1642 / C6171) is also placed in the pen of Urban VIII, a letter written to his “disciple” William Laud well after Laud’s imprisonment. Although the salutation with which Urban greets Laud—“Renowned, yet despicable SONNE” (1)—gives a satirical dimension to the letter, the letter itself is a straightforward expression of the pope’s disappointment at Laud’s failure to institute “our Catholike designes” (1). The pope nevertheless is made to encourage Laud by referring to the success of the Irish Rebellion to date: “in Ireland wee hope our deare children will perpetrate all the good they can devise … Such being the condition of that Kingdome, that the ­I nhabitants being for the most part members of our holy See” (3). The pope continues: even though “wee were … encouraged to lay designes on foot, for the actuating some advantageous businesse to our selfe … ­seeing we could not secretly undermine” the Protestants, we resorted to “a professed and open hostilitie to oppose them” (3–4). The letter’s associative mechanisms, as with Coppy of a Letter Sent from John Lord Finch, are also exploited here as Urban writes, “we must needs congratulate our hopefull sonne Heylin” (2) for his efforts on behalf of ­Catholicism, to indict Peter Heylyn as Laud’s Catholic ally. The malleability of such letters—that is, that a letter from one pope can be attributed to any other pope—is demonstrated by A Letter from the Pope to the French King, which was initially published in 1672 (L1537A)

Epistolary Fiction  51 when Clement X was pope, and then again in 1680 (I202) when ­I nnocent XI was pope, while Louis XIV was king of France throughout. This pamphlet epistolary fiction is a straightforward letter of encouragement from Clement / Innocent to Louis, in which the pope thanks Louis for “tak[ing] up Arms to maintain the Divinity of the Catholick Religion” (2).125 As such, it serves as a catchall letter that, to a Protestant reader, indicts Louis as a warmonger bent on dominating Europe and reestablishing Catholicism in Protestant nations, since it was in 1672, the date of its first publication, when the Franco-Dutch War began.126 The pope declares, “Know then that all Europe … hope[s] shortly to hoist sail upon the Ocean under your conduct” (3). The war had ended by 1678, so perhaps the 1680 publication was meant to refer to Louis’s continuing militarism in obtaining further territories, his attempt to annex cities such as Luxembourg and Strasbourg, to extend the reach of ­Catholicism and the boundaries of his universal monarchy: a desire commonly ascribed to—and therefore a cultural narrative pertaining to—Louis as early as 1667–68.127 As the pope hopes, “you may one day win the Orient and the Occident, imitating the Glory of Your Ancestors” (3). Of course, the 1680 publication is a print letter redux, but the letter did not require any reframing since the European religiopolitical context, as far as England was concerned, remained largely the same. In addition to encouraging their adherents, popes were also imagined to use letters to threaten their religious enemies. The broadsheet Letter from His Holiness the Pope to the Most Illustrious Protestant Prince, James Duke of Monmouth (1682) is as if from Innocent XI and is a proWhig document. In the letter, the pope coaxes, bribes, and threatens the Duke of Monmouth into converting to Catholicism; if not, “we have an hundred little ways to work your overthrow; what A Dagger cannot do, Poyson may; and when a publick attempt shall miscarry, a private Assassination may do the job” (recto). Along the way, other targets imagined to be in league with the pope are hit, such as Elizabeth Cellier, Roger L’Estrange, and printer Nathaniel Thompson. Unlike in most other fictional letters, however, the rhetorical use of the letter form is dissociative rather than associative since the broadsheet is meant to demonstrate that Monmouth is a loyal Protestant and an enemy to the papacy: the sender alone is meant to be demonized in this fictional letter.

Civil War Newsbooks and Epistolary Fiction Disputing whether a letter was fictional or not constituted a fluid field of controversy. This was especially true of newsbook ­publication. ­B eginning in 1643, animadversion among opposing newsbooks ­comprised the substance of many numbers—particularly when it came to intercepted and captured letters, as we will see in Chapter 4. ­Moreover, newsbook editors sometimes printed fictional letters in their

52  Epistolary Fiction newsbooks, often with associated commentary, allowing a given newsbook to ­participate yet further in ideological contestation. A genuine letter sent from James Wardlace, Governor of Plymouth, for instance, was read in the ­C ommons and ordered to be printed.128 It appeared as The Copie of a Letter Sent from the Commander in Chiefe of the Town and Port of Plymouth to the Honourable ­William Lenthall (1643, Nov.  19 / W842). ­Nevertheless, Mercurius ­A ulicus—the principal royalist organ written chiefly by John ­B erkenhead between 1643 and 1645—demurred claiming “the Contrivers have framed a fine new Letter … which (if you’ll beleeve them) they tell you came from ­Plimmouth,” and suggests that it was Edmond Prideaux “who indeed made this Letter, and caused it to be received at his owne Post-­Office.”129 The  bête noire of Aulicus, Mercurius ­Britanicus— composed principally by Marchamont Nedham between 1643 and 1646—offered a rejoinder to Aulicus, arguing that “Master Prideaux is of an wholesomer and sounder constitution then your Doctor [John] Prideaux, Professour of idolatry at Oxford.”130 In another instance, after Aulicus printed an epistle from several lords to the Scottish Privy Council and others, The Spie challenged in its next issue that Aulicus “hath invented a most compleat letter …. This forged letter is of the same Originall with that which he fained a while ago to be sent from [Thomas] Glemham to our Brethren of Scotland.”131 ­However, the letter from several lords is also authentic, and it appears in the histories of John Rushworth, John Spalding, and Clarendon.132 Disputes such as these were common in newsbooks of the period when it came to questioning the authenticity of letters—even when the letters were patently fictional and broadly comical. Indeed, occasionally such fictional letters appeared in newsbooks alone, not otherwise published in pamphlet or broadside. A letter (which is probably fictional) of one Susan Owens, for instance, addressed “To her deare husband Master John Owen under Lieutenant Colonell West in the blew Regiment,” was printed by Aulicus: Most tender and deare heart, my kind affection yet remembred unto you, I am like never to see thee more I feare, and if you aske the reason why, the reason is this, either I am afraid the Cavaliers will kill thee, or death will deprive thee of me, being full of griefe for you, which I feare will cost me my life. I doe much grieve that you be so hard hearted to me. why could not you come home with Master Marfey on Saturday? could not you venture as well as he? … I am afraid if you doe not come home, I shall much dishonour God … pitty me for Gods sake and come home.133 Britanicus saw fit to respond to this letter with one of its own—but with one that is clearly fictional:

Epistolary Fiction  53 He [Aulicus] jeers us with an intercepted Letter of Mistresse Susans the Citizens wife, complaining for her husbands company, which she utterly disavowes; we shall shew you one of your Cavaliers Epistles intercepted about the same time, to a friend in London, onely you must excuse me, I Printed not the oathes, but left spaces. Jack, We have not left one Woman Lady Gentlewoman Waytingmaid or other honest We have now some Irish and Frenchwomen come to us We intend not to leave till we have sinned with all Nations as well as our owne, thine Carnavan.134 Nedham is denouncing Robert Dormer, 1st Earl of Carnarvon, a C ­ atholic peer of Charles, in response to Aulicus’ intimation that Parliament does not want peace but continuing war. Nedham hits on the characteristics that constituted the cavalier in this fictional letter as if from Carnarvon: licentious, coarse, disloyal, and a lover of Catholics.135 Another fictional letter appearing in Mercurius Civicus alone was constructed as if intercepted, discovering a “new Designe of the Cavaliers party against some Members of the Parliament. … The Letter was brought by a woman, with Tobacco wrapt in it, as a better colour for her free carriage.”136 The preface to this letter in Civicus reads in part, “We may be sure the enemies (like their father) are ever restlesse in their inventions, having still some designe or other in hand against Parliament.” No sender’s name is signed and no recipient’s name given, but the letter writer reveals at the end of the letter that “all will be for the honour of our Church”—making royalist and Catholic synonymous. The letter begins, “By your last, you expresse much sorrow for miscarriage of our great Designe.” Earlier in the month a plan arranged among George ­ iley Digby, John Reade, Basil Brooke, Thomas Violet, and Theophilus R had been discovered by Parliament by way of authentic letters intercepted, where Brooke and Reade, both Catholics, suggested an attempt to bring the city of London and the king in Oxford into an agreement of peace—one that would recognize the Parliament the king was calling in Oxford on January 22 as the legitimate one.137 The resulting pamphlets, A Copie of Certaine Letters, Which Manifest the Designe of the Late Discovered Plot (1644, Jan. 10T / C2166, C6193) and the official A Cunning Plot to Divide and Destroy the Parliament and the City of London (1644, Jan. 16 / C7586), were printed before this particular issue of Civicus. This is no doubt the plot referred to in the first line of the letter in Civicus and remarked upon again halfway through the letter. The new plot of the royalists imagined in this particular fictional letter in Civicus is not only to continue “Propositions of Peace” for their

54  Epistolary Fiction own self-serving purposes but also—and more threateningly—to assassinate problematic MPs and others: “that [William] Waller, [Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of] Manchester, Prynne, [Arthur] Haslerigge, and nine more … must hold a Councell of Warre with Pym,” Pym having died the prior December. The letter possesses the features of a fictional letter of conspiracy and is not mentioned by or printed in any other newsbook (or elsewhere), while details meant to authenticate the account of the interception given in the preface cannot be verified. There is also no record of the letter having been brought to the Commons or Lords—extraordinary, considering that the assassination of MPs was proposed in it. Civicus was a Presbyterian newsbook and during the first civil war was generally antiroyalist, often sparring with Aulicus.138 The editor of Civicus seems to have been directly behind this letter and reveals a particular animus against the Catholic conspirators involved in the plot to make the ­Oxford Parliament the lawful one. Indeed, before Parliament’s official report on the intercepted letters appeared in Cunning Plot, twothirds of one of the intercepted letters from Reade to Riley was printed in Civicus, while after the official account appeared, Civicus reported in detail on the publication of the pamphlet.139 Civicus’ comments on the conspirators’ plot to make the Oxford Parliament the lawful one are anti-­Catholic—“what Protestant Religion we are like to have, when the Papists, ­Traitors, and Irish Rebels at Oxford … shall proclaime and disclaime what they please”?—and similar anti-Catholic attitudes permeate the subsequent, fictional letter.140 Civicus also makes clear that in both plots royalists have approached negotiations for peace hypocritically: the design to make the Oxford Parliament the lawful one was made “under the specious name of Peace,” while in the fictional letter, the writer refers to royalists maneuvering the propositions of peace for their own ends.141 As far as the multiple assassinations relate to the earlier scheme to make the Oxford Parliament the lawful one, the royalist ventriloquized in the letter seems to be suggesting that if royalists cannot abolish the Westminster Parliament as a body, then perhaps they can dispose of its most troublesome members. Another fake letter as if by the queen appeared in September 1647—a letter that also generated newsbook debate. After the queen’s correspondence was published in The Kings Cabinet Opened (1645, July 14T / C2358), Henrietta Maria’s epistolary style was easier to imitate, yet the tone of a letter supposedly written by her was not consistent with what she felt about her husband accepting the terms of peace at Hampton court in 1647; as Green argues, a letter as if she acquiesced to the Army’s terms was forged and printed, a letter which of course would be advantageous to the Army.142 The letter has manifestation in both pamphlet and newsbook, appearing as The Queenes Letter to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty Expressing Her Royall Inclination to His Sacred Majesty

Epistolary Fiction  55 (1647, Sept. 16 / Q157E) and in Perfect Summary.143 It is no surprise that Perfect Summary was an Army organ, probably edited by Henry Walker, who also edited Perfect Occurrences—another pro-Army newsbook.144 Both newsbook and pamphlet specify that it was commanded to be published, but the letter was never recognized in Parliament and there is no order to print. Royalist newsbook Mercurius Melancholicus of course objected to the letter: “I am credibly informed [it] was of his [Luke Harruney’s] own Penning” (the appellation is an anagram of Henry Walker).145 Walker, in Perfect Occurrences, in turn refutes Melancholicus: “Mellencholicus hath raised another evil Spirit to translate a vition of a forged Letter (pretended) from the Queen to the King.”146 John Crouch in his bawdy The Man in the Moon occasionally inserted letters into his newsbook and in 1649 invented one as if from Oliver Cromwell to an unnamed member of Parliament written after the siege of Wexford in October—a letter, however, that is anything but coarse. In fact, to assert that the losses suffered by Cromwell on the battlefield were substantial, Crouch places in Cromwell’s pen the sort of language Cromwell himself used. The letter begins, “The hand of God, and his providence, hath been mightily seen working for Us by his powerful arm,” yet Cromwell is made to write (and not without irony considering his reference to “The hand of God … working for Us”) that the loss of 9000 soldiers has threatened his conquest of Ireland.147 The fake letter of intelligence as if from Cromwell allows Crouch to question reports from other newsbooks, which state that Cromwell had lost only 500 men. Because Crouch intends to challenge other reports by offering his own (false) report on Cromwell’s losses, the letter is not constructed as a mockery or satire of Cromwell, though such a letter of self-mockery would be more fitting considering the character of the newsbook. But Crouch keeps the bawdy in reserve for the subsequent commentary on the letter, observing that in an ensuing battle “Noll himself hath got a pockey clap with a brace of Bullets in his Gennitals” (229).

The Second Civil War: The King of Utopia, His Letter A rather distinctive fictional letter in favor of peace was printed during the second civil war. The King of Utopia, His Letter to the Citizens of Cosmopolis, the Metropolitan City of Utopia, Together with the Citizens Answer (1647, Aug. 5T / K575) is a remarkable example of fictional material that in turn exploits other fictional material and in which fictional personae write the letters.148 The king states in his letter that “that beautifull English Moore made Utopia a Monarchy” (2), but there is no king per se in More’s Utopia, only the princeps, literally “first leader” (which can be translated as prince) who held the elected title for life unless suspected of tyranny.149 Yet the king of Utopia was clearly intended to be King Charles and Cosmopolis was obviously meant to be

56  Epistolary Fiction London. The pamphlet is responding to events occurring in and around London during late July and early August 1647.150 With the Army approaching London throughout the month of July, on July 13 a group of citizens, apprentices, and reformadoes petitioned Parliament calling for the restoration of the king, suppression of conventicles, and the demobilization of the Army; and on July 21, this same group of people (100,000 in all) signed the Solemn Engagement of the City with the hope of restoring the king to the throne and “procur[ing] a firm and lasting Peace … without the nearer Approach of the Army.”151 On July 26, individuals drawn from this group exhorted the two houses to invite the king to return to London.152 Both houses rejected the Solemn Engagement of the City, and the city prepared for the Army’s entry into London. Charles sent a letter to Thomas Fairfax on August 4 in which the king denied all intentions to wage war against Parliament.153 The Army finally entered London two days later on August 6. The letters were constructed to reflect events occurring just before the Army entered the city. The first letter of the pair in King of Utopia, His Letter is written by a careworn monarch. Charles himself, in late July and early August, was being held in Woburn by the Army, which had taken him from Parliament’s control at Holdenby on June 4. Although Charles in his letter to Fairfax did not approve of the uprising of the city, the king of Utopia writes in his letter that “I am still every day brought onwards on my Journey towards Cosmopolis by loving Vox populi, and if all Tongues had spoken true, I had bin long since with you” (3–4). The response letter from “The Citizens of Cosmopolis” verbalizes a universal desire for the king back in Cosmopolis and emphasizes the failings of the Utopians. Where More, in instituting the utopian commonwealth, “ordain’d order, we [the citizens write] have otherwise orderd the business, he propos’d Discipline, we have practis’d confusion, hee planted peace and plenty, we by exiling the one have banished the other” (5), as if the citizens were unable to live up to More’s ideal. The citizens wish to bring back peace: “a patient Prince and a quiet People may maintain betwe[e]n them a Peacefull Land” (6). The letter exchange here serves as a compact—virtually a contract— between king and citizens, perhaps along the lines of the pledge signified by the Solemn Engagement of the City. The letter form was also exploited, as we have seen in other epistolary fictions, in order to communicate as if across distance, as Charles was at that time under the Army’s control, distant from London, in Bedfordshire. The citizens also take a jab at sectarians in their letter: when the citizens write that “we have a sect among us that would willingly make a change of precedent Government for a Platonick Common-wealth” (6), they are referring to the Levelers, and among the mock errata that conclude the pamphlet, one indicates that “For Bishop read Presbyter” ([8]).154 Hence, the author of this pamphlet carefully selects the features of Utopia he wishes to

Epistolary Fiction  57 accentuate while suppressing others like common property, which was advocated by the Levelers. The author desires to appropriate the ideals of Utopia for the king’s side where the princeps rules like a monarch, where uniformity is crucial, and where heterogeneity is condemned. Several current events intertwine in these fictional letters: the city’s unrest and riots, the formulation of the Solemn Engagement of the City, the Army threatening London at its outskirts, and the rise of the Levelers. The pamphlet is similar to Parliaments Care for the Citie insofar as the letters are inserted into, and deal with, precise circumstances. Unlike Parliaments Care for the Citie, however, King of Utopia, His Letter ties together several incidents by way of fictional letters as if composed by invented characters of an imaginary land. But by compounding fiction upon fiction, the author’s perspective is not made less real or true; More’s Utopia serves here as a model of an ideal society whose ideals have been displaced, and this disparity between what is and what could (or should) be makes the fiction that much more compelling.155 A recognition of the “truthfulness of fiction” is not at all a paradox and reminds us of Andrew Allam’s validation of the truthfulness of a letter acknowledged as a fiction, Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus Nicanor.

The Restoration The period of political stress during 1659–60 also saw the publication of pamphlet and broadside epistolary fiction. The author of A Letter from Maj. General Massey to an Honourable Person in London (1660 / M1037) adopts the pen of Major General Edward Massey in early 1660 (the letter is dated February 25) to encourage the possibility of the restoration of the monarchy.156 The author is vague, even mistaken, regarding personal details and in fact gets the first name of Massey wrong in the signature of the letter, where the name “William” is given though Major General Edward Massey is clearly meant, as ascertained by the title of the pamphlet and in a few particulars given in the letter (­ Edward Massey was an MP and former governor of Gloucester, as the ventriloquized Massey states in the epistle). Massey initially fought for Parliament but in 1649 defected to the royalists, joining Charles in exile and taking part in various battles and uprisings in England throughout the 1650s.157 The Massey constructed in this letter, after burnishing his credentials in a broad fashion—“[I] have a life devoted … to my Countries Happiness and Honour” (1)—moves into his solution to the present “deluge of confusion, one oppression ushering in another, one Power crushing and crushed by the other” (3) by advocating peace—a peace that can only be achieved if Parliament “Petition[s] the Prince” (5) to return to England. Are the only hindrances, Massey asks rhetorically, Anabaptists? “Certainly never any Souldier dreaded them, for they will make as Schismatical Armies as Congregations, and be as many

58  Epistolary Fiction divisions as Conventicles”; and adds sarcastically, “What potent Enemy is at door, except you reckon my Lord [John] Lambert?” (4). The author of this pamphlet attempts to use the reputation (and pen) of Massey as a vehicle through which to argue for Charles’s restoration; as Massey throughout his career supported both royalist and parliamentary regimes, he is offered by the author as an authority uniquely qualified to advocate the best course of action for the nation. The author of this pamphlet constructs a specific, though selective, image of Massey, ventriloquizing him to recollect a history of his service to the nation, but not any recent actions standing in contradiction to this image. Roughly a month later, Marchamont Nedham composed Newes from Brussels in a Letter from a Neer Attendant on His Majesties Person to a Person of Honour Here (1660, Mar. 23T / N398-A) in which ­Nedham adopts the role of a courtier close to Charles in Brussels, but one who writes to his correspondent of Charles’s secret Catholicism and his potential vindictiveness were he restored to the throne of England.158 Margaret Anne Doody has analyzed Nedham’s mimicry of a cavalier’s idiom and the parody of cavalier’s attitude to create an individual who is flippant and foolish—yet one who, like Charles, will take vengeance on traitors once Charles is restored.159 The impact of Nedham’s pamphlet was enormous—Newes from Brussels was called a “Hydra” by one contemporary and a £20 reward was offered by the Council of State for the discovery of the author.160 It also prompted several print responses from anxious supporters of Charles. One of these is also in epistolary form, True and Good News from Brussels Containing a Soveraigne Antidote against the Poysons and Calumnies of the Present Time in a Letter from a Person of Great Quality There to His Friend in England (1660, Apr. 2T / S205), of which Edmund Peirce claimed authorship after the Restoration.161 Peirce condemns the earlier pamphlet by using his own epistolary persona—a man of quality designated by the initials W. S. Partway through the letter, W. S. thanks his correspondent for sending him a copy of the anonymous Newes from Brussels. He immediately launches an attack on its perspective and author, ultimately identifying the author as Nedham with a sarcastic dig: “I have often said of late, that Mr. Needham would yet once more, before he dyed write for the Cavaliers, and see how soon my prophecy is fulfilled” (5). Peirce not only recognizes that the persona Nedham adopts is, ironically, that of a royalist but also references Nedham’s recurrent turncoating. In unmasking the fiction of Nedham’s letter, W. S. details a literary analysis—“the Stile, language, and sense are purely his” (5)—and writes of the strange circumstance “that made a neer attendant on his Majesties Person, write so perfectly the sense of Sir Arthur Hazlerigge, and Mr. [Thomas] Scot” (6), especially since “his Majesty hath no such neere attendants, as this would personate, no such fiends haunt his Person, or Court” (7). The pair of letters constitutes a sort of “collaborative” epistolary fiction:

Epistolary Fiction  59 even though the pamphlets embrace entirely divergent ideological standpoints, as epistolary fictions they work together dynamically and are in some ways mutually supporting as a dialectic exchange. The broadside A Reply to That Malicious Letter Pretended to Be Sent from Brussels by a Near Attendant on His Majesties Person (1660 / P88) is also a response to Nedham’s epistolary fiction; the author (given as N. P., which may or may not be a persona) places his denunciation in the form of a letter to his cousin and proceeds to tear down Nedham’s fiction by use of external evidence: the Pen of that property to all disloyalty, and humanity, Ne[dham] who, as God would have it, let fall some of the very expressions, and comical periods, since published in it, to an ingenuous Friend of ours, who had casually discourse[d] with him, a little before it came forth in print. Thus, the vanity of the Fool, betray’d his own stratagem. In revealing the identity of the author of Newes from Brussels, Peirce and the author of Reply to That Malicious Letter hope that disclosing Nedham’s epistolary persona will demolish the power of the anti-Charles propaganda. John Evelyn and Roger L’Estrange also responded to Nedham’s ­pamphlet. Evelyn composed The Late News, or Message from Bruxels Unmasked (1660 / E3503) in which he writes, “a vein I perceived there was of forged and fictitious stuff, put into a most malitious dress of Drollery” (1), and characterizes the pamphlet as “this piece of artificial forgery” (3). In the broadside The Fanatique Powder-Plot, or The Design of the Rumpers and Their Adherents to Destroy Both Parliament and People, with a Caution against Forged Intelligence (1660, Mar. 26 T / L1247A), L’Estrange also razes Nedham’s persona: “The principal drift of his Discourse is, to Personate a Royalist, Charging the Presbyterians with the murther of the King, and professing an Implacable Animosity against the whole party.”162 More pertinent, perhaps, is the general warning L’Estrange offers to the reader: the fanatics’ last Recourse, is to the Forgery of Letters; (but so ridiculously framed, they are rather argument of Sport, than Anger …)[.] There are diverse Scandalous Papers dispersed, in the Name of the King; and as the sense of the Royal Party. You shall do well, to take notice, that nothing of that Quality, proceeds either from Himself, or his Friends. Edmund Peirce also authored another epistolary fiction, The Jesuits Grand Design upon England Clearly Discovered in a Letter Lately Written from a Father of that Society (1660, Apr. 4T / P1063).163 Using

60  Epistolary Fiction the initials J. M., Peirce takes the role of a Jesuit writing from Douai to another Jesuit in England on the eve of the Restoration (the letter is dated March 27, 1660); Peirce’s choice of “J. M.” may be a conscious echo of the J. M. designated as the author of 1643’s Copy of a Letter ­Addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels Found among Some Jesuites. J. M. begins his epistle by referring to current events across Europe. Peirce does so to generate fears about secret Jesuit machination in international intrigue and to promote the narrative of Jesuit control of ­European politics. J. M. also advocates against the Restoration, claiming to his fellow Jesuit that any settlement will weaken the Jesuits’ state in England; we must “prevent (if possible) those contingencyes, so unhappy and disastrous to us” (8). Peirce lays bare the Jesuit scheming that, by evidence of the letter itself, is passing in secret correspondence exchanged among Jesuits (it is designated in the title as “Discovered”). Peirce refers again to Nedham’s Newes from Brussels in this pamphlet but—now in the role of a Jesuit—praises Nedham’s pamphlet and hints at the difficulty of halting a Presbyterian–royalist détente: our utmost endeavour … must not yet be omitted; and somewhat was done lately to that purpose by good advice, which I hope by this time is published as a Letter sent from Bruxels, that affaire being put into such hands, as ‘tis known will do it to the purpose. (5) Peirce is criticizing Nedham’s pamphlet yet again but here in order to indict it as a piece of Jesuit propaganda working against the monarchy and Restoration. In using this tactic, Peirce appropriates epistolary interreferentiality, a common feature of handwritten letters where letters refer to other letters, to help make his point.

The Popish Plot There were few straightforward epistolary fictions printed between 1678 and 1683; rather, the mode of choice, as far as the letter form goes, seemed to be satirical epistolary fictions, as we shall see in the following chapter. Nevertheless, an epistolary fiction bearing a title similar to ­Jesuits Grand Design upon England was printed during the early months of the Popish Plot, a pamphlet that was condemned by Parliament as d ­ angerous. In A Letter from a Jesuit at Paris to His Correspondent in London (1679 / N110), author John Nalson, Anglican clergyman and later historian, takes the role of a Jesuit with the initials D. P. who dates the letter “Feb. 12. N[ew] St[yle] 1678” (11).164 D. P. explains that he has just returned to France from the hazards of England and guarantees the safety of their correspondence because it is in a difficult cipher, through which Nalson codes both a threatening cabal and

Epistolary Fiction  61 the confidentiality of the correspondence. D. P. explains how the Jesuits have controlled the old Cavalier Parliament in setting members upon one another in order to shift light away from the Catholics and then lays out a set of specific plans to manipulate the newly elected House of Commons, to quell investigation into the Popish Plot, and to accuse the Presbyterians of a plot against the king.165 Along with An Explanation of the Lord Treasurer’s Letter to Mr. Montagu (1679 / L923), Letter from a Jesuit was called in to the Commons on March 21, 1679; both are designated as “scandalous Pamphlets” that are “seditious, and … reflect upon the King and the Government.”166 After the lower house learned that Nalson was the suspected author, MP Silas Titus remarked, It is said that he is a Protestant; but he has written a Book in the name of a Jesuit. I like not such Protestants. It is said abroad, that there are Protestant hands in the Plot; and will not the world believe it, from such a Book …?167 Nalson defended himself by claiming that it was written “for his diversion only, to be kept secret,” and that Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Charles II’s treasurer, had acquired a copy and brought it to the printer.168 Some MPs considered the pamphlet unequivocal evidence of Danby’s Catholic sympathies (Danby was also accused of denying the Popish Plot); as MP George Montagu puts it, “One of the Articles [of impeachment] against Danby is, ‘That he is a favourer of Popery,’ and so against the Church of England; and this man, by his encouragement, has written this Book.”169 Certainly, patronage processes were at work here; Titus observes, “I do not believe he [Nalson] wrote the Book for an exercitation barely, but in hopes of a good living.”170 When Nalson was brought before the House, Speaker William Gregory informed him, “You are justly under the displeasure of the House, for meddling out of your sphere, and you are more to blame for meddling out of your calling, in personating a Jesuit in the Book you have written.”171 There is little doubt that Danby sponsored this pamphlet, as Titus argues: “Danby gave order for printing this Book, and I believe for the writing it too,” while printer Henry Hills, who had printed the two ­pamphlets, testified that I had direction to print them from my Lord Treasurer, who told me … ‘he would have [Letter from a Jesuit] printed, to disappoint the Papists, who have ill will to the Government, thereby to do ­service to the Nation’.172 Danby indeed had motive for publishing Letter from a Jesuit. Printed roughly a week before the new Parliament sat, the pamphlet was composed in part to impugn Charles II’s third (the Habeas Corpus)

62  Epistolary Fiction Parliament that would no doubt revive discussion of Danby’s impeachment after Danby had failed to pack the House with his supporters—to characterize whatever actions the Commons undertook as a direct result of Jesuit objectives and policy, the Commons conforming precisely to the wishes of the Roman-Catholic imperium. Serious repercussions could result from “personating a Jesuit,” and Speaker Gregory’s phrase recalls Robert Beaumont’s observation that “every Epistolist … may personate any Humour, and yet not patronize it.” What Beaumont does not comprehend in his observation, however, are the consequences of impersonating a humor one does not patronize for, like other writers punished for printing scandalous epistolary fictions, Nalson was jailed for composing this pamphlet.173 When adopting a persona in epistolary fiction, then, authorship may be intentionally acknowledged well after the fact (so as not to undermine the effectiveness of the propaganda) as it was by Edmund Peirce, to call attention to oneself; or intentionally hidden, as it was by Nalson, to protect oneself if the circumstances proved dangerous. Peirce foregrounded his Jesuits Grand Design upon England as a commendable achievement when petitioning Charles II for the position of master of requests after the Restoration, referring to it and to other pamphlets “that hee hath nevertheles written, and with much danger and expence published in print … which have been very serviceable to his now Majesty and the Church.”174 Nalson’s impersonation in Letter from a Jesuit, on the other hand, was deemed “seditious … reflect[ing] upon the King and the Government.”

The 1688–1689 Revolution Placing letters in the pens of both real and imaginary Jesuits continued through the time of the 1688–1689 Revolution. A Letter from Father La Chaise, Confessor to the French King, to Father Peters, Confessor to the King of England … to Which Is Added a Letter from Will Penn to Father La Chaise (1688 / L1465) was printed sometime after July 16.175 Edward Petre was, in 1688, chaplain and privy councilor to James II, perceived as an influential courtier and royal favorite, while François de La Chaise was confessor to Louis XIV.176 In the first letter of the pamphlet, La Chaise congratulates Petre for his efforts on behalf of Catholicism and reports to Petre that Catholic domination of Europe is proceeding well; he praises Petre for arranging the imprisonment of the seven bishops who opposed some of James’s religious policies and for organizing the birth of the sham prince. Overall, the letter is intended to demonstrate to what extent the Jesuits Petre and La Chaise are controlling international religiopolitics. Father La Chaise’s Project for the Extirpation of Hereticks in a Letter from Him to Father P----rs (1688 / L127) is propaganda very similar in content; in fact, the core of the pamphlet consists of a large portion of text evidently taken from the middle

Epistolary Fiction  63 of the La Chaise letter in Letter from Father La Chaise with an initial sentence and a brief concluding paragraph added to frame the text from the other publication.177 After the first letter in Letter from Father La Chaise, editorial observation commences: “Here Curteous Reader thou hast word by word the Letter of la Chaise to Father Peters … here thou seest a proof of their unheard of Cheating and Cruelty” (Bv); the editor also offers evidence that the new prince could not possibly be the issue of James and Mary of Modena. One of the more common features of letters—their documentary and evidentiary capacities—is put into operation here, as this letter is framed as direct testimony of the Jesuits’ plots. The letters were also constructed to take part in current gossip and cultural narratives. In his letter, La Chaise relates the tale that, having blackmailed King Louis of a sealed commission, he ordered all the Huguenots in France to be murdered in one day but was hindered at the last moment (A3v–[A4v]) to demonstrate Jesuit cruelty; and reports the gossip that the new English prince was suspected by many to be a miller’s son, a carpenter’s son, or a plowman’s son who was already a month old when he was born (B) to sustain the story of the sham prince. Obviously, the author of this letter is reiterating fantasy material that was well embedded in the public consciousness and, by using the powerful documentary character of letters, can make the propaganda appear that much more cogent. Emma Bergin fixes these letters directly to King James in remarking on the Dutch and French versions of the letters: Doubts regarding James’s intentions were further cultivated by overtly placing his policies at the heart of the supposed international Jesuit conspiracy to eradicate Protestantism. This message was mainly conveyed via explicit pieces of anti-Jesuit propaganda which were … depicted as purportedly clandestine correspondence.178 The second letter in Letter from Father La Chaise, which is as if from Quaker William Penn to La Chaise—individuals who almost certainly never corresponded with one another—effectively suggests that Quakers and Jesuits share the same ideological positioning and religiopolitical goals, and exploits the association between Quakerism and Catholicism when, before 1685, both were persecuted religions. Like Petre, Penn was seen as something a favorite of James and was an unofficial counselor to the king, which led to accusations that Penn was a closet Catholic, perhaps even a Jesuit, a charge he denied in print with his Fiction Found Out (London?, 1685 / P1291).179 Penn writes in his letter to La Chaise of his alliance with Petre (B3v), but Penn did not, in fact, associate with Petre; yet because Penn aided James in suspending the Test Act in 1687 with the Declaration of Indulgence, which negated the laws punishing dissenters (and which therefore benefitted Quakers as well as Catholics),

64  Epistolary Fiction Penn was identified as one of the confederacy; by uniting Penn with ­ etre and La Chaise the author therefore exaggerates the compass of the P Roman-Catholic cabal.180 Irregular attempts to imitate the language of a Quaker occur in the letter—Penn writes “thanks be to the Father of lights” (B2v), for instance; yet Penn also engages in decidedly uncharacteristic Quaker conduct by relating to La Chaise gossip concerning a riot in Holland resulting from the reaction to the birth of the royal bastard and repeats some of the gossip surrounding the prince they call “a son of a whore” (B3v), content no doubt included to insinuate Penn’s hypocrisy, a charge commonly leveled at those in dissenting sects. Penn also faced condemnation in the broadside A Letter from the ­Jesuits in the Savoy to the Jesuits at S. Omers … Taken from the Priests in the Dover Coach (1688 / P101), ostensibly a joint letter composed by five Jesuits who identify themselves by initials only.181 Since the letter was imagined as sent from Jesuits in Savoy to Jesuits in St. Omer in France and taken in England, it was intended to represent a circular letter transmitted among Jesuits at large; the practice is in fact mentioned in Letter from the Jesuits in the Savoy.182 The letter itself is a brief recapitulation of “our perfecting the Grand Design.” Although James is not indicated by name as a party to the conspiracies, the Jesuits’ reference to the appointment of judges, bishops, and other “Places of Trust, Civil and Military” implicates James and his excessive use of dispensing power in placing Catholics in high offices. “Mr. Pen and his Enthusiastick Sectaries” are designated as allies of the Jesuits: “Our Brother Pen and his Disciples have done us signal Services,” the Jesuits write. The certainty of the Jesuits in effecting their designs is marked by no fear of counterpropaganda: “as for their Paper-War,” the letter writers state, “we value it no more than Sugar Plums, or a Fart.” There are touches of satirical condemnation in the broadside, as well, as in the Jesuits’ characterization of Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, and James Drummond, 4th Earl of Perth, as “those Glorious Patrons of our Cheats and Designs,” but the letter is designed to indict broadly Jesuits as covertly (and effectively) running the government of England. Three Letters (1689? / T1099-A)—containing a letter from an ­unnamed Jesuit in Liège to a Jesuit in Freiburg, one from Petre to La Chaise, and one from La Chaise to Petre—exemplifies the same sort of Catholic scheming, where yoking together three previously printed letters (two of them in both French and Dutch) implies widespread plotting.183 The first letter was also printed in 1687 in a somewhat different version as A Letter of a Jesuit of Liege Concerning the Method of Establishing the Catholik Religion in the Kingdom of England (London? / L1563A) and was a remarkable propaganda endeavor with 100,000 copies printed.184 In the second letter in Three Letters (dated February 9, 1688), Petre promises to use the cipher La Chaise had sent him, acknowledges that the queen is indeed pregnant, and describes the progress Catholicism

Epistolary Fiction  65 is making in England. In La Chaise’s letter of response (dated March 7, 1688), he praises Louis for seeking a “Universal Monarchy,” a king “naturally good, and loves not to do Evil, unless desired to do it” (13), and details the doings of others in the French court. La Chaise also writes that James must “put a stop to the Insolency of Heretick Authors, as also to hinder the People from reading them” (15).185 Of course, the epistolary fiction itself constitutes such an “Insolency” since it was written by a Protestant author who is ventriloquizing a religious and political enemy with a propagandistic aim in mind. La Chaise’s statement was intended to suggest that this sort of pamphleteering was indeed having a powerful effect. One impression of Three Letters (T1099A) includes a fourth letter titled “Popish Treaties not to be rely’d on: In a Letter from a Gentleman at York to his Friend in the Prince of Orange’s Camp. Addressed to All Members of the next Parliament,” attributed to Gilbert Burnet. Beginning with a diatribe against arbitrary government and containing a virtual history of Catholic treachery across Europe and the New World from the sixteenth century to the present, this fourth letter serves as a counterpoint to the Jesuit plotting outlined in the prior three letters by offering William as its counteractive agent; the letter writer praises the character of William and Mary, augmenting the anti-Catholic propaganda with explicit pro-William propaganda. Both impressions of Three Letters bring into focus the wider European context of the Catholic threat and emphasize the genuine menace many English Protestants might have felt of the forces of militant Catholicism ranging against them in Europe.186 Many of these letters saw print a number of times in various permutations. “Popish Treaties not to be rely’d on,” for instance, was printed separately, possibly the year before (1688? / P2960), while the letter of La Chaise to Petre found in Three Letters was also printed in The French King’s Decree against Protestants (1689 / L3117).187 Burnet had meanwhile printed all four letters found in one of the impressions of Three Letters late in the prior year in his A Third Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (1688 / T900).188 The incorporation of the letters into Burnet’s collections marks them as historical in nature since they are united with straightforward ­reportage— albeit material favoring William of Orange—and other documentary material in this and in the other Collection of Papers Burnet printed in 1688 and 1689. These are print letters redux, then, some of them printed multiple times and in multiple languages, where the repeated printings have the effect of certifying the letters’ authenticity. With so much propaganda printed, James was surely unable to “put a stop to the Insolency of Heretick Authors, as also to hinder the People from reading them,” as La Chaise had hoped in his fictional letter. Letters printed throughout the last 60 years of the seventeenth century such as Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere, Letter

66  Epistolary Fiction Intercepted at a Court-Guard, Letter from the Pope to the French King, and O’Neill’s fictitious letter to Lunsford in Parliaments Care for the Citie all exploited the fundamental association between letters and ­Catholic conspiracy—that letters often constituted a dangerous mode of subversive communication.189 Other print letters such as Copy of a Letter Addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels, Letter from a Jesuit at Paris, Jesuits Grand Design upon England, Letter from Father La Chaise, Letter from the Jesuits in the Savoy, and Three Letters defined yet more specifically the tie between secret correspondence and expressly Jesuit treachery. Secret writing could therefore be compellingly depicted as a characteristically Catholic practice, and this perception allowed print letters such as those in Letter from Father La Chaise and Three Letters to be that much more persuasive as evidence of Jesuit scheming. Moreover, because authentic discovered letters to and from La Chaise were well known and had been printed before in Mr. [­Edward]­ ­Coleman’s Two Letters to Monsieur L’Chaise … with Monsieur L’Chaise’s Answer to Mr. Coleman (1678 / C5046) and given elaborate official presentation in A Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott (1681 / T2102), the fictional letters published under La Chaise’s name could indeed appear legitimate. In contrast to “Popish Treaties Not to Be Rely’d on” in its various print manifestations, the author of an epistolary fiction in broadsheet, A ­L etter Intercepted from a Confident of the Prince of Orange to His Friend in The Hague (London?, 1689 / L1559), offers warnings of ­William’s despotism now that he has usurped the throne of England. William is styled “Prince of Orange” in the broadsheet’s title, not crowned W ­ illiam III until April 1689, so the celebratory letter of the confidant to his friend in Holland would seem to have been printed in the early months of 1689. Even though the English “were so proud and so jealous of their liberty … we have nevertheless found out the way to subject them intirely,” the confidant boasts; we will establish “a despotick power both over ­England, and over the United Provinces” (recto). The confidant explains that this will be accomplished by engaging the English army in foreign war, by jailing “all the troublesome Lovers and Assertors of liberty” (recto), by shutting the English out of their own government, by crippling trade, and by destroying the nation’s religion—“and believe me,” the confidant continues, “there is nothing more easy than to enslave this Nation” (verso). Just as Nedham in Newes from Brussels had taken the role of an advisor close to Charles to convey how tyrannical Charles would be if restored, William’s confidant engages a narrative of a despotic king bent on subjugating the nation; it is a depiction of William similar to portrayals of popes determined to enslave Protestants, or to Louis XIV set on establishing a universal monarchy. Because Letter Intercepted from a Confident of the Prince of Orange was imagined as an intercepted letter, it not only exposes the secret machinations of

Epistolary Fiction  67 its correspondents’ cabal through publication but also “documents” a Dutch conspiracy to annex England. The King of France’s Letter to the Earl of Tyrconnel Found in a Ship Laden with Arms for Ireland (1689? / L3127) ventriloquizes Louis XIV, who promises military aid to the recently fled James.190 In broadside, the letter was as if written by Louis soon after James left England in mid- to late December 1688 but well before his return to Ireland in March 1689 when James was indeed accompanied by French soldiers (Louis refers to looking forward to welcoming James to his court yet also observes that “The Kingdom of Ireland seems, at present, to be your Master’s last Stake”). Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, James’s commander-­inchief in Ireland, was imagined as the recipient of this fictional letter. A full quarter of the letter consists of a catalogue of the arms, money, and officers to be sent; Louis “doubt[s] not of the Assistance of God in so Just a Cause, so we may … conclude of the speedy Re-establishment of Our Royal Brother in his Throne & Kingdom,” and advises Tyrconnell in the meantime to levy troops and seize property to raise money. Like Letter Intercepted from a Confident of the Prince of Orange, the concoction of an expressly “found” letter codes exposed secrets—here, the sort and number of military resources offered to Tyrconnell to invade England by way of Ireland. The threat of Tyrconnell expropriating “without distinction, all the Hereticks Goods and Estates” augments the menacing tenor of this letter, rendering it quite similar to fictional letters as if by other kings of the House of Bourbon, namely 1642’s A Royal Letter Sent from the King of France to the King of England in which Louis XIII is ventriloquized to offer forces to Charles I—though of course Louis XIV did eventually send troops to help James retake the throne. Any cultural narratives exemplified here pertaining to fear of invasion by French monarchs are therefore of longue durée. Lesser-known individuals also had letters attributed to them during this time. Two broadsides, A Copy of a Letter Out of the Country to One in London Discovering a Conspiracy of the Roman Catholicks at St. Edmunds-Bury in Suffolk (1688 / C6131A) and An Exact Copy of a Letter Dropt by Accident near Ludgate, Dec. 6. 88 (1688 / J982A), printed late in 1688 are much like the sort of anti-Catholic epistolary material in the form of discovered letters printed during the early 1640s.191 John Jones, the putative letter writer of Exact Copy of a Letter Dropt, informs recipient James Nettervill that “a desperate Disease requires as desperate a Cure: We have … above 13000 loyal Catholicks lately come to this City … besides what be in the Army, and they daily increase,” urging Nettervill to a meeting where they will rendezvous with a “Father Gardner” and a “Father Berry”—“they shall inform you of the Concern.” Copy of a Letter Out of the Country to One in ­L ondon contains two letters. The first is a frame letter of an unnamed individual in Braintree writing to his brother in London,

68  Epistolary Fiction informing him that in Bury St. Edmunds “it pleased God to discover … an horrid ­Popish Plot, for the burning, blowing up, and destroying that Town” and of the precautions taken by the inhabitants of Bury St. ­E dmunds and nearby Sudbury. The letter writer evokes the Gunpowder Plot by referring to “The Train [of gunpowder that] was laid … about thirty yards.” A copy of a letter passed between two of the plotters is also included, from John Daniel to John Stafford, a letter outlining nebulous preparations for “this great and meritorious Work … for this great and fatal Blow.” Like some of the discovered letters outlining plots printed during the early 1640s, these name names—not only the letter writers and recipients but also in Exact Copy of a Letter Dropt their clerical contacts. As far as Copy of a Letter Out of the Country goes, John Daniel and John Stafford are identifiable: Daniel was a resident of Acton, while Stafford was a Catholic mayor of Bury St. Edmunds; Francis Young, who has written about Catholicism in Bury St. Edmunds during 1688, calls this publication “A propaganda broadside” which gives a “very probably false … account of events in the town at the time of the Revolution.”192 Indeed, the broadsides participate in the acrimony that fueled widespread anti-Catholic riots that took place on December 10 and 11.193 Although the letters in these two broadsides are no doubt fictions, naming names indicts specific individuals—these are not letters whose senders and recipients are unnamed or given by initials, meant to arouse a broad panic as in Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard. The specificity of the four names in Exact Copy of a Letter Dropt suggests that these, too, were real individuals accused of Catholic extremism—though I have not been able to trace them. What is especially intriguing about Copy of a Letter Out of the Country is that it is aimed at laypersons instead of the usual suspects—priests and Jesuits—perhaps recalling the fact that Guy Fawkes was also a layman. Some fictional letters alleging to detect Gunpowder Plot-like schemes of the 1640s also named names, and indicted laypersons such as Strafford, Orlando Bridgeman, Lucius Cary, and John Culpepper.194 A Letter of Enquiry to the Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus Written in the Person of a Dissatisfied Roman Catholick (1689, Oct. 26 / T284) is signed “A. B.”—a designation also used in legal documents to stand for any individual, as in swearing an oath. It was written by James Taylor, who fully acknowledges the fiction in the title of the pamphlet as well as in the preface: Could I believe it fit to Lye for GOD, or that Truth needed the service of Falshood, I might have been tempted to imitate the Tricks and Deceiving Arts of the Romish Factors … and boldly have sent this Letter abroad, as really writ by a Romanist …. I who make these Enquiries, am a Layman of the Church of England: and that I make them in the Person of a Roman Catholick, is for no other reason,

Epistolary Fiction  69 but only to preserve a better Decorum, and the more to affect the Persons for whose sake I chiefly Publish this Letter. (Advertisement, A2) Reproving disguised epistolary impersonation as no better than ­“imitat[ing] the Tricks and Deceiving Arts of the Romish Factors,” ­Taylor is forthright in acknowledging his persona but denies that taking the role of a Catholic is fabrication in the service of truth; rather, provisionally adopting the attitude, perspective, and belief system of a (dissatisfied) Catholic is intended to better confront those of authentic Catholics. ­Taylor would no doubt have endorsed Robert Beaumont’s formula ­“every Epistolist hath this privilege above others, that he may personate any Humour, and yet not patronize it” since he plainly does not embrace the Catholic faith; rather, he wishes to employ an epistolary persona to serve dialectic processes of debate and animadversion. In other words, Taylor declares his use of prosopopoeia. Considering all the epistolary fictions I have outlined so far in this chapter, it was ­generally rare for authors to unmask themselves at the time of publication as the composers of epistolary fictions written as if by other ­individuals—it was usually done only for distinctive persuasive purposes, as in the case of Taylor, or belatedly as in Andrew Allam’s recognition that John Corbet took the role of ­Lysimachus Nicanor in Epistle Congratulatory of Lysimachus Nicanor. Other impulses such a patronage may have also motivated the authors behind the ventriloquy to unveil themselves: Edmund Peirce sought reward after publishing Jesuits Grand Design upon England, while some writers of satirical epistolary fiction such as Thomas Francklin in his An Epistle Written from Lucifer … unto … the Persecuting Popish Prelats (1642 / F2089) and John Taylor in his Letter Sent to London from a Spie at Oxford … Which Letter Was Intercepted and Taken Prisoner by John Taylor (Oxford, 1643 / T474) also revealed the author behind the fiction. Otherwise, a slippage in the ventriloquy of an epistolary persona suggests a defect in the presentation and therefore a deterrent to the effectiveness of the persuasion; as the author of Reply to That Malicious Letter Pretended to Be Sent from Brussels by a Near Attendant on His Majesties Person puts it, when Nedham inadvertently revealed his impersonation he “betray’d his own stratagem”—his ­ventriloquy therefore lost its cogency.

William Fuller’s Epistolary Fictions In his fictional 1688 letter to La Chaise in Three Letters, Petre is made to write of “all the Satyrical Discourses of the Hereticks, who content themselves to vent their Poyson in Libels” such as “one lately found upon a Pillar of a Church, that imported that [on] such a day Thanks should be given GOD for the Queen’s being great with a Cushion”

70  Epistolary Fiction (5–6). William Fuller was one such writer who exploited this narrative over several years in order to develop the story of the sham prince. Fuller offered fictions that elucidated vast networks of plotting, proven, as he claimed, by letters. In a series of publications between 1696 and 1702, Fuller referred to and published numerous fictional letters from real individuals such as James II, Mary of Modena, the Marchioness of Powis, and the Earl and Marchioness of Tyrconnell that testified to the theory that the prince was not the king and queen’s legitimate issue but that his father was Tyrconnell and his mother was one Mary Grey—who was subsequently murdered for knowing too much. Mary Grey, however, never existed. Fuller developed a detailed story that exposed the origin of the prince using fake letters to document it in publications that ­became bestsellers. Fuller initiated his conspiracy theory with A Brief Discovery of the True Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales, Known by the Name of Mary Grey (1696 / F2479) and A Further Confirmation That Mary Grey Was the True Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales, Together with an Account of the Private Messages and Letters Sent by the French King, King James, the Late Queen, and Other Persons of Quality to Their Agents in England (1696 / F2482), which refer to, but do not print, numerous letters exchanged between James, Mary, and the Catholic 1st Marquess and Marchioness of Powis (William Herbert and Elizabeth Somerset), among many others. In the last paragraph of Further Confirmation Fuller promises, to render this matter yet the more Incontestible, I purpose suddenly to publish the True Copies of the LETTERS sent by the French King, King James, the Late Queen, and their Ministers of State … being the Originals that I brought from France. (45–46) The promised letters did not appear, but that same year saw the anonymous Mr. De Labadie’s Letter to His Daughter, Mrs. Delabadie, Nurse to the Pretended Prince of Wales (1696 / M2261A)—probably also by Fuller.195 In it, James de Labadie, valet to James II, is ventriloquized to write to what the title page calls his daughter, Mary Anne de Labadie— though Mary Anne was actually de Labadie’s wife.196 The letter itself, stated as originally in cipher and deciphered by John Wallis, is brief: I am so troubled about what you told me last time I saw you, that I cannot forbear any longer Writing to you; to know how her Majesty behaves her self in that hazardous undertaking. I must Confess, the only thoughts of it makes me tremble. I hope Nevertheless, that the Ingenuity of her Country, and the Goodness of her Cause will bring her off.

Epistolary Fiction  71 Lord what a happy thing it would be, if we could get a Successor for our King, that would settle our Fore-fathers Profession in our Country, which can never be but by this means. I am afraid of those Hereticks that are about her, if these could be put out of the way it would be a very good thing. Adieu, my Dear, and don’t fail to write to me by the bearer, and in the same hand. I rest, Your ever Loving (5–6) The mistaking of Mary Anne for James de Labadie’s daughter is only the most glaring of errors that betray the letter’s fictional origins, and in testimony Mary Anne de Labadie swore the prince was indeed the queen’s child.197 Yet six pages of specific analysis follow the letter in which Fuller offers a close reading of this missive, word by word and phrase by phrase. As with Peirce’s True and Good Newes from Brussels, the same analytical labor that might be applied to a piece of literature is applied to a fictional letter. Although the letter is vague (whose vagueness is reminiscent of Strafford’s “letter to a great lady”), Fuller claims that “the Intreigue concerning the Sham Prince is so plainly express’d in the Letter, that it can admit of no other Gloss” (7). Yet, at other points in the analysis, Fuller claims to be at a loss in understanding certain ambiguous passages, such as the last clause of the third paragraph. Fuller interprets it two ways, both of which are damning to the Jacobites. Four years later, the letters of Louis XIV, James II, and James’s ­ministers promised at the end of Further Confirmation had still not been printed. Instead A Plain Proof of the True Father and Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales (1700 / F2485 and F2485 variant) appeared.198 It contains several letters, from Queen Mary to Roger Palmer, 1st Earl of Castlemaine; from Mary to James’s secretary William Caryll; as well as one from Caryll to Frances Talbot, Countess of Tyrconnell, indicating that the queen had ordered the death of Mary Grey—with observations on all of them. In this pamphlet, Fuller develops the narrative of the sham prince more specifically by identifying the father as Tyrconnell, who had an adulterous affair with mother Mary Grey, a woman named as his relative. Fuller’s use of letters, epistolary fictions as if written by the parties involved, was an attempt to furnish documentation of his claims, and his observations on each added analytical weight. In 1702, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth with Letters of the Late Queen, Father Corker, and Several Others Writ by Mrs. Mary Grey (1702 / T52031-2) was printed. Seven letters appear in Twenty Six Depositions, principally one from Queen Mary to King James, purportedly written in 1690 in invisible ink, in which she reports to him the murder of Mary Grey (4–5); and four letters from Mary Grey to one Catherine O’Brien dated in 1688—the first fictional letters of this fictional individual printed. Six weeks later, Original Letters of the

72  Epistolary Fiction Late King’s (T43434) was published, and it, too, contains seven letters, including three letters supposedly by James (who had died the previous September). These two books brought Fuller before the Lords, which deemed the pamphlets scandalous, and then before the Queen’s Bench, which charged him with libel.199 Over six years and through several pamphlets, Fuller developed a coherent fiction documented by letters. In the words of Fuller’s ­biographer, the story is an “extraordinary piece of fiction” and “an apparently well-­ documented tale” where letters play a crucial role in this certification (both Twenty Six Depositions and Original Letters of the Late King’s also boasted a spurious “Published by Command” imprimatur). 200 ­Discussion of the letters therefore played a role in Fuller’s trial for libel. One of the charges was that Fuller printed Twenty Six Depositions to perfect and bring to effect his further most wicked Practices and Intentions against diver Officers, and other Subjects of the late King William, upon a feigned and pretended Correspondence between them and the late King James, whilst he resided in France. 201 Although not the root of the charges against Fuller, the fake ­correspondence—and the documentary capacity it ultimately failed to manifest—was recognized as a feature of his crime, as Chief Justice John Holt observes during his examination of Fuller: “You charge a great many persons with corresponding with France, and cannot prove it.”202 Kate Loveman has tied Fuller’s epistolary inventions to conventional epistolary fiction: Fuller catered directly to the taste fostered by romantic novels. He kept within the conventions of testimony—providing detailed ­accounts with corroborating evidence which seemed to come from many hands—but admirers of [Aphra] Behn’s Love-Letters … would have found much to interest them in Grey’s tale. 203 Yet Fuller’s skill in “providing detailed accounts with corroborating ­evidence … from many hands” was questioned in a satirical fictional letter as if from Titus Oates to Fuller: the broadsheet A Familiar Letter from Dr. Oates to William Fuller in the Fleet (1702 / N32386)—an appropriate coda to Fuller and a useful segue to the following chapter. In this mocking letter, Oates is made to celebrate his success as plot-­ discoverer while reveling in the downfall of Fuller, unsuccessful in creating the same panic as Oates had, one former prisoner censuring a current inmate. However, at the same time, Oates implicitly censures himself along with Fuller—a characteristic of these sorts of satirical letters of self-condemnation. The letter begins, “I find the Justice of both Houses? has at last over taken the[e], and I rejoyce at it with all my Heart. May

Epistolary Fiction  73 this be the Fate of all Plot-Discoverers, say I, who pretend to build without Meterials!” (recto). The core of Oates’s criticism of Fuller is that Fuller based his revelations on documentation that was never legitimate (or was never proved to be legitimate, as in Justice Holt’s observation), and that Fuller relied on testimony from informants or otherwise that was never forthcoming. “I managed Affaires so discreetly,” Oates is made to boast, “that I never wanted People to support my Evidence,” while anyone who is as foolish as Fuller in mismanaging a discovery “ought to be hooted out of the World if he pretends to set up for an ­Evidence” (verso). Yet the joke here is also meant to be on Oates: he, too, used forged letters to allege treason during the Popish Plot: Oates and Ezerel Tonge forged incriminating letters as if to Thomas Bedingfield, chaplain to James, Duke of York, while Oates himself invented other letters that he claimed were exchanged among those he was accusing. 204

Conclusion In focusing on the fictional features of letters specifically, I do not intend unequivocally to divorce epistolary fictions from other fictive discourses such as speeches, dialogues, confessions, pamphlet plays, and other discourses that ventriloquize voices and adopt personae—for clearly these other forms of ventriloquy offered ideological perspective as well. Yet I have tried to highlight the distinctive epistolary features that set these print letters apart from other genres and literary forms by accentuating the cultural meanings of letters; I have attempted to demonstrate how these features were coded in letters in print in order to manufacture ­fictional discourses within which lies ideological perspective. Furthermore, unlike other genres, the letter is a form that ­embraces ­ eckendorn both authenticity and deception at once. The letter, Elizabeth H Cook writes, “was considered the most direct, sincere, and transparent form of written communication … [yet] the letter was simultaneously recognized as the most playful and potentially deceptive of forms, as a stage for rhetorical trickery.”205 These divergent, contradictory usages of letters are not to be weighted equally, however; in other words, by sheer numbers, in ordinary, everyday epistolary exchange in early modern ­England, letters were more often seen as truthful, sincere documents and less often as deceptive, dishonest ones. Prosopographia or prosopopoeia, to give just two species of deceptive letter writing (or Cook’s “ ­ rhetorical trickery”), were simply not in frequent, habitual use in ­day-to-day letter writing. Because letters were fundamentally known and understood to represent their writers—their thoughts, their ­intentions, and their ­motives—the crime of letter forgery was possible; forgers appropriated the conventions of letters, their salutations, and their signatures in the process of representing another on paper. Of course, using prosopographia or prosopopoeia was not in itself a crime; yet long-established

74  Epistolary Fiction meanings and customary usages of letters allowed them to function as deceptive documents in print—not to defraud but to persuade.

Notes 1 Robert Beaumont, Loves Missives to Virtue (1660 / B1629), A3. 2 Thomas O. Beebee, Epistolary Fiction in Europe, 1500–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 3. 3 Robert Day Adams, Told in Letters: Epistolary Fiction before Richardson (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), 6. See also 98: “Authors could afford to be more explicit on another strong point of epistolary narrative: its power to depict the processes of the mind—emotions, changes of feeling, traits of character, complexities of motivation.” 4 Elizabeth MacArthur, Extravagant Narratives: Closure and Dynamics in the Epistolary Form (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 61. 5 Arthur F. Kinney, Humanist Poetics: Thought, Rhetoric, and Fiction in Sixteenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986), 22, 23. 6 Kinney, 22; Judith Rice Henderson, “On Reading the Rhetoric of the ­Renaissance Letter,” in Renaissance Rhetoric / Renaissance-Rhetorik, ed. Heinrich F. Plett (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993), 157–58 (143–62). 7 Beebee, 6. 8 Gerald MacLean, “Re-siting the Subject,” in Epistolary Histories: Letters, Fictions, Culture, eds. Amanda Gilroy and W. M. Verhoeven (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000), 182 (176–97). 9 Mark Knights, Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain: Partisanship and Political Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 216. 10 Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (New ­Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 53; Joad Raymond, Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 215. 11 Elencticus, 1, Oct. 29–Nov. 5, 1647 (E.412[30]), 8. 12 Mary Anne Everett Green, Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria (London: Richard Bentley, 1857), 51; Vernon F. Snow and Anne Steele Young, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 7 March to 1 June 1642 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 78 (henceforth Private Journals, vol. 2). 13 Ted R. Jamison, George Monck and the Restoration: Victor without Bloodshed (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1975), 146. 14 C. H. Firth, ed., The Clarke Papers, 4 vols. (London: Longmans, Green, 1891–1901), 4:xvi and n1; Walter Scott, ed., A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts [The Somers Tracts], 2nd ed., 13 vols. (London: T. Cadell et al., 1809–1815), 6:558. 15 Jamison, 145–46. 16 I quote from 20946.8. 17 Jerry H. Bryant, “John Reynolds of Exeter and His Canon: A Footnote,” The Library, 5th ser., 18 (1963): 300 (299–303). 18 David Colclough, Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 111. See also Cyndia Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 170, 174–76, for Reynolds in the context of media suppression. 19 It was printed again as The Humble Advice of Thomas Aldred to the Marquesse of Buckingham Concerning the Marriage of Our Sovereigne Lord

Epistolary Fiction  75 T

King Charles (1643, Jan. 5 / A2940A). A pair of lines from a Stuart verse libel captures the nature of this “honest letter”: “Another would not be to England debter / but to the marquesse writes a prettie letter.” From “Fortunes wheele, or Rota fortunae in gyro” in Early Stuart Libels, www. earlystuartlibels.net/htdocs/index.html (Item K1, lines 384–85, and n8). 20 Entered on February 9, 1640 (Edward Arber, ed., A Transcript of the ­Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, 5 vols. [London: Privately Printed, 1875–1894], 4:500). I quote from 5752. 21 Tim Harris, “Charles I and Public Opinion on the Eve of the English Civil War,” in The Nature of the English Revolution Revisited, eds. Stephen ­Taylor and Grant Tapsell (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013), 9 (1–25). 22 I quote from 1205. Schenick = scenic, in the sense of dramatic or theatrical. Baillie also guesses Bishops John Maxwell and David Mitchell as its author. In his later An Historicall Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland (1646, Aug. 1T / B460) Baillie accurately zeroes in on John Corbet (2). 23 Printed during Hilary Term (Jan.–Feb.). Edward Arber, ed., The Term Catalogues, 1668–1709, 3 vols. (London: Privately Printed, 1903–1906), 2:65 (its prefatory material is dated January 14); ODNB, 1:749. See also Mark Knights, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 206. Henry Foulis in his The History of the Wicked Plots and Conspiracies of Our Pretended Saints Representing the Beginning, Constitution, and Designs of the Jesuite (1662 / F1642) also defends the letter and author (16, 177). 24 The Unloading of Issachars Burthen is in An Historicall Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland cited in note 22. 25 Even though it does not agree in number, I will also use “redux” for letters plural—“print letters redux”—because “print letters reduces” just looks silly. 26 ESTC also lists this pamphlet with a fuller title as S5784G. 27 Terence Kilburn and Anthony Milton, “The Public Context of the Trial and Execution of Strafford,” in The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, 1621–1641, ed. J. F. Merritt (Cambridge: Cambridge ­University Press, 1996), 243 (230–51). See also Elizabeth Sauer, ‘Paper-contestations’ and Textual Communities in England, 1640–1675 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 41–42. 28 Kilburn and Milton, 245–46. 29 Kilburn and Milton, 247. 30 Kilburn and Milton, 250. Some scholars, in the past, have taken these ­letters as authentic. 31 Agnes Latham and Joyce Youings, eds., The Letters of Sir Walter Ralegh (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1999), xxx, 265n2. Subsequent references to the long version are from Latham and Youings; all subsequent quotations from the short version of the letter are from To Day a Man, To Morrow None. 32 Latham and Youings, 264, 265. The parallel passages from the short version of the original letter are: “and I trust that my blood will quench their malice that desire my slaughter, and that they will not seek also to kill you and yours with extream poverty” and “Teach me to forgive my persecuters and false accusers, and send me to meet him in his glorious Kingdome” (2, 5). 33 I understand that this minor modification could be a transcription or typesetting error, but when tied to the other changes, intention is suggested. The difference also appears intentional insofar as Earle of Straffords Letter

76  Epistolary Fiction to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger contains passages from both the long and short versions of Ralegh’s letter, and where Ralegh writes “beare itt patiently” (Latham and Youings, 263) in the long version, the more ­critical language of the short version is incorporated. 34 The original short and long versions of Ralegh’s letter have “Bayly oweth me 1000 l. Arion 600 l.” (3) and “Baylie oweth mee 200li and Adrian ­Gilbert 600li” (Latham and Youings, 264) respectively. 35 Kilburn and Milton, 250. 36 Kilburn and Milton, 250. 37 Quoted in D. F. McKenzie and Maureen Bell, eds., A Chronology and Calendar of Documents Relating to the London Book Trade, 1641–1700, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1:15. Julia B. Griffin also comments on how Strafford is ventriloquized to make a variety of diverse statements in publications following his execution. “‘Twixt Treason and Convenience: Some Images of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford” in Images of Matter: Essays on British Literature of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Yvonne Bruce (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 155–56 (153–82). 38 It is also tagged onto the end of The Two Last Speeches of Thomas Wentworth (1641 / S5800B). J. P. Klemp misinterprets the reference to “the Simple and Absurd Letter to His Lady in Ireland” in the subtitle of the Protestation against a Foolish, Ridiculous and Scandalous Speech as a reference to the “letter to a great lady” (The Theatre of Death: Rituals of Justice from the English Civil Wars to the Restoration [Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2016], 93, 121–23). 39 “A Letter directed to the Lady Shelly was read … [and it was] Ordered, That Sir Gilbert Gerrard, Sir John Francklyn, Mr. Tomkins, Mr. Law. ­W hitakers, Mr. Perd, do presently repair to the House of the Lady Shelly; to search her House; to examine her concerning a Letter brought to this House, and directed to her.” Journals of the House of Commons, 13 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1802), 2:144, accessed via B ­ ritish History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/search/series/commons-jrnl (henceforth abbreviated as CJ). 40 Maija Jansson, ed., Proceedings in the Opening Session of the Long Parliament, House of Commons, 7 vols. (Rochester: Rochester University Press, 2000–2007), 4:339. MP John Moore also recorded it (Jansson, 4:348), but his rendering contains the expression “hellish brood.” The letter was given in précis later in the year in The Diurnall Occurrences (1641 / E1527), 100–1. 41 Lady Shelley appears to be Jane Shelley; she and husband John were ­accused of recusancy in 1635 but saved from the charge by the favor of King Charles. T. P. Hudson, ed., A History of the County of Sussex, vol. 6, part 1 (London: Victoria County History, 1980), 19. Viewed at British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/sussex/vol6/pt1/pp10-21. Shelley later denied any knowledge of the letter: see Jansson, 5:95, 98, for the upshot of the investigation of the letter addressed to her. 42 Robin Clifton, “The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution,” Past & Present 52 (Aug. 1971): 39 (23–55). See Chapter 4 (253n35) for the letter warning William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, not to attend Parliament and to leave London. See also Klemp, 123–24, on the great lady letter. 43 Kilburn and Milton, 249. 44 Tue Andersen Nexø dates the pamphlet to January. “Between Lies and Real Books: The Breakdown of Censorship and the Modes of Printed Discourse during the English Civil War,” in The Use of Censorship in the

Epistolary Fiction  77 Enlightenment, ed. Mogens Lærke (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 78 (77–94). Irremiable = “admitting of no return” (OED, under irremeable). ESTC notes that this pamphlet is also identified as B117 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. I quote from B3582. 45 Nexø, 80. 46 Charles L. Squier, Sir John Suckling (Boston: Twayne, 1978), 30. 47 Thomas Clayton, ed., The Works of Sir John Suckling, Vol. 1: The Non-­ Dramatic Works (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), lvii. Interestingly, Suckling had evidently written an epistolary ad hominem attack on Leslie in an earlier unpublished—but widely circulated—“exercise in loyalist propaganda”: a letter called “An Answer to a Gentleman in Norfolk” (Squier, 38–39). 48 Clayton, lxi. 49 Clayton, lxvi and n2. 50 David Plant, “The Second Bishops’ War, 1640,” BCW Project: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate, 1638–1660, http://bcw-project. org/military/bishops-wars/second-bishops-war. 51 Dated by Clayton circa December 1641 or earlier (lxi). 52 See Clayton, lviii, n5, for Suckling’s association with Conway; as well as Timothy Raylor’s Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994), 92–93; and Robert Wilcher’s The Discontented Cavalier: The Work of Sir John Suckling in Its Social, Religious, Political, and Literary Contexts (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007), 188. 53 Clayton, lviii. 54 This pamphlet may have been written by Richard Overton (Don M. Wolfe, “Unsigned Pamphlets of Richard Overton: 1641–1649,” Huntington Library Quarterly 21.2 [Feb. 1958]: 184 [167–201]), though Overton biographer Marie Gimelfarb-Brack demurs (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Justice!: La Vie et l’Oeuvre de Richard Overton, Niveleur [Berne: Peter Lang, 1979], 451). Perhaps of some help: the display initial in Coppy of a Letter Sent from John Lord Finch matches exactly that in a signed pamphlet by Overton, New Lambeth Fayre (1642 / O631-A). One Finch biographer, William H. Terry, takes the letter as authentic (The Life and Times of John, Lord Finch [London: Simpkin Marshall, 1936], 411). 55 ODNB, 19:575–76. 56 ODNB, 13:534. 57 A modern collection of Cosin’s letters—George Ornsby, ed., The Correspondence of John Cosin, 2 parts (Durham: Surtees Society, 1869–1872)— does not contain any extant correspondence between the two, but there is a gap in the correspondence between 1640 and 1645. 58 ODNB, 13:533. 59 Margot Heinemann, Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 248. 60 Crawley, like Finch, backed the monarch in Hampden’s case and was impeached in 1641 (ODNB, 14:96); Wren was impeached along with Laud; and Abell and Kilvert both protected monopolies. Likewise, when Finch writes “That whither soever the tempestuous Winde hurrieth, you would remember to keepe your head warme” (4), he is alluding to Francis Windebank. 61 H. R. Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, 1573–1645, 2nd ed. (Hampden: Archon, 1962), 413.

78  Epistolary Fiction 62 James Bliss, ed., The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, vols. 3–7 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1853–1860), vol. 5, part 1, 298–99 and note b; but see also vol. 6, part 2, 596 note s, where its identification as a forged letter is given; and Falconer Madan, Oxford Books: A Bibliography of Printed Works Relating to the University and City of Oxford or Printed or Published There, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1895–1931), 2:152. I quote from L589. 63 Madan, 2:152. 64 Bliss, vol. 6, part 2, 596 note s; Madan, 2:198. The imprint continues “and now reprinted at London for Edward Vere.” 65 Madan, 2:198. 66 Journals of the House of Lords, 42 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1767–1830), 4:418, accessed via British History Online, www.­ british-history.ac.uk/search/series/lords-jrnl (hereafter designated as LJ). The pamphlet was therefore published sometime after November 2 and before December 1 when Philip was released (LJ, 4:458). 67 Joseph Gillow, A Literary and Biographical History … of the English Catholics, 5 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1885–1902), 5:305; Henry Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 7 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1877–1884), 5:1012. Foley continues: “Neither Clarendon, nor any other historian, mention the Earl of Traquair’s supposed letter, which, assuming it to have been real, was too momentous a document to be kept back” (1013). I quote from T2053. 68 Notes for Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere, National ­Library of Scotland website, www.nls.uk/collections/rarebooks/acquisitions/ singlebook.cfm/idfind/896. 69 For atrocity publications, see Joseph Cope, England and the 1641 Irish Rebellion (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009), Chapter 4. 70 CJ, 2:978; Sheila Lambert, Printing for Parliament, 1641–1700, List and ­Index Society, Special Series, 20 (1984), 48 (hereafter abbreviated as PP). 71 Continuation of Certaine Speciall … Passages, 34, Feb. 23–Mar. 2, 1643 (E.246[33]), 3. 72 Perfect Diurnall, 38, Feb. 27–Mar. 6, 1643 (E.246[38]), [Pp3]. 73 It could be a reference to a March 1 allowance to the city for arms, guards, and fortifications (CJ, 2:985), but no specific rationale for the allowance is given in the Commons Journal. 74 Mark Stoyle finds no evidence that Lunsford was Catholic. “The Cannibal Cavalier: Sir Thomas Lunsford and the Fashioning of the Royalist Archetype,” The Historical Journal 59.2 (June 2016): 309n82 (293–317). 75 Steinman Steinman, “Memoir of Sir Thomas Lunsford, Baronet,” The Gentleman’s Magazine, n.s., 5 (Jan.–June, 1836) (London: Pickering, 1836), 353 (350–57). A Remonstrance of the Present State of Things (1642 / H79-A), published on January 18, contains an abbreviated version of this letter. 76 Bond mentions the title of this pamphlet separately (“the Parliaments Care for the Tower [was] false”) in addition to the fake letter contained in it (“Lunsfords Letter … found … at the Temple Barre” [A3v]). I quote from P510B. 77 See Cope, 39, for O’Neill’s stated opposition to excessive violence. 78 ODNB, 41:857. 79 CJ, 2:372, 374. 80 CJ, 2:372. See Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1500–1700 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 216–17, 251–52, 294–95n25, for more on the discovered print letter.

Epistolary Fiction  79 81 Martin J. Havran, “Parliament and Catholicism in England 1626–1629,” The Catholic Historical Review 44.3 (Oct. 1958): 281 (273–89). See also Thomas M. McCoog, “A Letter from a Jesuit of Liège (1687)?” Recusant History 30.1 (2010): 91–92 (88–106). 82 Havran, 281. 83 John G. Nichols, Supplementary Note to The Discovery of the Jesuits’ College at Clerkenwell in March 1627–8 in The Camden Miscellany, vol. 4 (London: Camden Society, 1859), 10. 84 Other copies of the letter read “a conquerour” (John G. Nichols, The Discovery of the Jesuits’ College at Clerkenwell in March 1627–8, The ­C amden Miscellany, vol. 2 [London: Camden Society, 1852], 39). See James ­Daybell, The Material Letter in Early Modern England: Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practices of Letter-Writing, 1512–1635 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 192, for the circulation of this letter. 85 Nichols, Discovery, 40. 86 See Nichols, Discovery, 10 and 39 note h. 87 Mercurius Politicus, 55, June 19–26, 1651 (E.632[20]), 881. A Most Strange Letter Which Was Found in the Old-Change the 18. Day of Jan. and Directed with This Mark, ✚ to the Right Reverend Father in God, ­M atthew [Wren], Lord Bishop of Ely (1642 / M2923-A) exemplifies this sort of superscription. See Chapter 4 (203–4). 88 Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 39. 89 For Digby’s letter, see 41–42 and Chapter 4, 206–7; for Charles I’s 1643 letters, see Chapter 4, 212–13. 90 CJ, 2:441; Willson H. Coates et al., eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 3 January to 5 March 1642 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 416. 91 LJ, 4:641. 92 CJ, 2:457. 93 Quentin Bone, Henrietta Maria, Queen of the Cavaliers (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972), 141. 94 Green, 48. 95 Quoted in Michelle Anne White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 53; see also Bone, 136. 96 CJ, 2:455. 97 LJ, 4:660, 680. See also Michael Mendle, “Grub Street and Parliament at the Beginning of the English Revolution,” in Media and Revolution: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jeremy D. Popkin (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995), 39 (31–47); and Jason Peacey, “Print and Public Politics in Seventeenth-Century England,” History Compass 5.1 (2007): 93 (85–111), for more on Bond. 98 LJ, 4:674–75. 99 Michael Mendle, “De Facto Freedom, De Facto Authority: Press and Parliament, 1640–1643,” The Historical Journal 38.2 (Jun. 1995): 329 (307–32). 100 LJ, 4:680. 101 Madan dates this pamphlet tentatively to September 15 (2:289). See also Dagmar Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997), 202, 209, on this narrative. 102 Aulicus, 42nd week, Oct. 21, 1643 (E.74[10]), 589. 103 No modern biography of Brome refers to the Richard Broome mentioned in the Lords Journal—either to affirm or reject the identification—and none discusses his participation in pamphlet publication. Michael Mendle assumes

80  Epistolary Fiction

04 1 105

106

107 108 09 1 110 111

112

113 114

115

116 117

that the author is “the dramatist-journalist Richard Broome” (“Grub Street,” 39), while Freist gives the author as Richard Browne (107). Continuation of the True Diurnall of All the Passages in Parliament, 11, Mar. 21–28, 1642 (E.201[34]), 73, reports on the fake letter of the king of France. I quote from R2133E. For instance, Continuation of the True Diurnall of Passages in Parliament, 7, Feb. 14–21, 1642 (E.201[19]), 54; and Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament, N/A, Feb. 21–28, 1642 (E.201[20]), 8, contain news reports of a French force in preparation to aid the Irish rebels. Mark Stoyle, “English ‘Nationalism,’ Celtic Particularism, and the ­English Civil War,” The Historical Journal 43.4 (2000): 1116 (1113–28). See ­Perfect Diurnall, 10, Mar. 14–21, 1642 (E.201[27]), 8; and the same newsbook, 11, Mar. 21–28, 1642 (E.201[33]), 3, 7, for just a few of these sorts of reports. LJ, 4:660. Continuation of the True Diurnall of All the Passages in Parliament, 11, Mar. 21–28, 1642 (E.201[34]), 72, reports on the Lords burning the Newton letter. Private Journals, 2:77–78. The letter also appears in A Declaration of the Great and Weighty Affayres and Matters of Consequence Concerning This Kingdome (1642 / D684). Private Journals, 2:97, 113. Private Journals, 2:97. Private Journals, 2:113. There was evidently some confusion between this letter and Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague as both allege to report on events from The Hague and both were supposedly sent by a gentleman usher; they also share content. When John Coke reports to his father in April that “Newton hath been upon the pillory for his letter” he is confusing Bond, the author of Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague—who was indeed pilloried—with Umfreville, the author of Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton. Coke quoted in McKenzie and Bell, 1:46. Vernon F. Snow and Anne Steele Young, eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 2 June to 17 September 1642 (New ­Haven: Yale University Press, 1992) also mistake Umfreville for Bond (78n3) (henceforth Private Journals, vol. 3). Private Journals, 2:97, 113. The same fake letter is in More Good and True News from Ireland (1642 / C5025). The queen’s letter from Holland is also mentioned on March 24 in the Commons along with Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton as “the Two Letters from Holland” (CJ, 2:494) in sending for their printers. See Herbert H. Bowen, The Princes of Orange: The Stadholders in the Dutch Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 73, on the issue of discord. A Declaration from York by Sir Francis Wortley (1642 / W3635), 3. Danes Plot is also identified as D170 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. Bond, in fact, accused Richard Brome of writing Danes Plot (LJ, 4:680). See Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 147, 153, for more on forged imprimaturs. A Hellish Plot Discovered against the Castle and the Whole Citie of Dublin (1642 / H1385) also contains the letter. I quote from P170A. CJ, 2:633. Framlingham Gawdy’s parliamentary journal entry reads “My Lord Paget’s letter read, which is said to be a fiction,” where the use of the passive voice suggests uncertainty (Private Journals, 3:108).

Epistolary Fiction  81 118 LJ, 5:152. 119 ODNB, 42:382. 120 John Sutton, “Loyalty and a ‘Good Conscience’: The Defection of ­William, Fifth Baron Paget, June 1642,” in Staffordshire Histories: Essays in Honour of Michael Greenslade, eds. Philip Morgan and A. D. M. Phillips (Keele: Staffordshire Record Society, 1999), 154 (127–56). 121 An Extract of Severall Letters Sent from Yorke, Hull, France and Holland (1642, June 22 / E3912), A2. 122 Perfect Diurnall, 9, Aug. 8–15, 1642 (E.202[34]), 7–8. 123 Private Journals, 3:280. 124 The pamphlet was published sometime after December 16, 1641, as the pamphlet reports news occurring on this date. 125 I quote from L1537A. 126 Tony Claydon, Europe and the Making of England, 1660–1760 ­(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 164–65. 127 Claydon, 164–65, 158. 128 CJ, 3:314; PP, 74. 129 Aulicus, 47th week, Nov. 25, 1643 (E.77[33]), 666. Prideaux was to ­become postmaster general the following year (ODNB, 45:340). 130 Britanicus, 15, Nov. 30–Dec. 7, 1643 (E.77[34]), 115. See Joad ­Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–1649 ­(Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 150, for Berkenhead and Nedham. 131 Aulicus, 9th week, Mar. 2, 1644 (E.37[26]), 855–57; Spie, 7, Mar. 5–13, 1644 (E.37[10]), 53, 54. The Glemham letter The Spie refers to is in ­Aulicus, 5th week, Feb. 3, 1644 (E.33[20]), 808–11. It, however, is also authentic despite the objections of The Spie and Britanicus, 23, Feb. 12–19, 1644 (E.33[21]), 179. 132 John Rushworth, ed., Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, 8 vols. (London, 1721), 5:561–63; John Spalding, The History of the Troubles and Memorable Transactions in Scotland from the Year 1624 to 1645, 2 vols. (Aberdeen, 1792), 2:137–40; Edward Hyde, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. William Dunn Macray, 6 vols. ­(Oxford: Clarendon, 1888), 3:287–88. 133 Aulicus, 36th week, Sept. 9, 1643 (E.67[25]), 499–500. 134 Britanicus, 4, Sept. 12–19, 1643 (E.67[26]), 27–28. See also J. G. Muddiman, History of English Journalism to the Foundation of The Gazette (London: Longmans, Green, 1908), 53–54. 135 The fake letter itself aside, the characterization of Carnarvon is relatively accurate: see Hyde, History, 3:178. 136 Civicus, 35, Jan. 18–25, 1644 (E.30[7]), 378. 137 CJ, 3:358. See Bertha Meriton Gardiner, A Secret Negociation with Charles the First, 1643–1644 in The Camden Miscellany, n.s. 31, vol. 8 (London: Camden Society, 1883). 138 Raymond, Invention, 27, 42. 139 Civicus, 34, Jan. 4–11, 1644 (E.81[22]), 364; Civicus, 34, Jan. 11–18, 1644 (E.29[12]), 369–71 (369 mispaginated as 669). 140 Civicus, 34, Jan. 4–11, 1644 (E.81[22]), 364. 141 Civicus, 34, Jan. 11–18, 1644 (E.29[12]), 370. 142 Green, 338. 143 Perfect Summary, 9, Sept. 13–20, 1647 (E.518[34]), 67–68. The letter also appears in The Queenes Majesties Propositions to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty (1647, Sept. 22 / Q157G). 144 Raymond, Invention, 53, 37, 199. 145 Melancholicus, 4, Sept. 17–24, 1647 (E.408[12]), 4 (mispaginated as 3); Raymond, Invention, 166n181.

82  Epistolary Fiction 46 Perfect Occurrences, 37, Sept. 10–17, 1647 (E.518[33]), [256]. 1 147 Man in the Moon, 28, Oct. 31–Nov. 7, 1649 (E.578[9]), 228. 148 Antoine Lion, “The King of Utopia: Une Référence Politique à More en 1647,” Moreana 30 (1971): 67–68; G. P. Garavaglia, “I Livellatori e ­l’Utopia,” Moreana 31/32 (1971): 191–96; and Hideo Tamura, “Utopia in Seventeenth-Century England,” Moreana 64 (1980): 37–49, all briefly touch on this pamphlet. 149 David Harris Sacks, introduction to Utopia, by Thomas More (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999), 134n30. 150 The narrative that follows in this paragraph is largely derived from Samuel Rawson Gardiner, The History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649, new ed., 4 vols. (London: Longman, Green, 1894), 3:334–52. 151 H. N. Brailsford, The Levellers and the English Revolution (Stanford: ­Stanford University Press, 1961), 247; LJ, 9:351. 152 Brailsford, 247. 153 See Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 221, Aug. 3–10, 1647 (E.401[21]), 626, for reference to the contents of Charles’s letter to Fairfax. 154 Lion, 68. 155 Nedham himself also used the “letter from Utopia” formulation during 1657 in offering justification for Cromwell to accept the kingship in Mercurius Politicus, 352, Mar. 5–12, 1657 (E.502[11]) and in the following three issues. In number 356, the letter writer is from “Oceana.” See also J­ oseph Frank, Cromwell’s Press Agent: A Critical Biography of Marchamont Nedham, 1620–1678 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), 101–2. 156 The date on the imprint is 1659, but this must be Lady Day dating (ESTC also has 1659). Massey is ventriloquized to write of “being a Member of this now-sitting Parliament” (3)—the Long Parliament—which was restored on February 21, 1660, and in which, as a readmitted secluded member, Massey sat. Therefore, a publication date soon after February 25, 1660, seems more accurate. 157 ODNB, 37:210. George R. Abernathy Jr., “The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration, 1648–1663,” Transactions of the American ­Philosophical Society, n.s., 55.2 (1965): 17, 26, 31 (1–101). During early February 1660, Massey was in fact encouraging an uprising around Bristol (ODNB, 37:210). 158 See Frank, 124–25; and Joad Raymond, “The Cracking of the Republican Spokes,” Prose Studies 19.3 (1996): 255–74, on this pamphlet. 159 Margaret Doody, The Daring Muse: Augustan Poetry Reconsidered ­(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 46. 160 Quoted in Geoffrey Keynes, John Evelyn: A Study in Bibliophily and a Bibliography of His Writings, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 78; F. J. Routledge, ed., Calendar of Clarendon State Papers, Vol 4: 1657–1660 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), 629. 161 Henry Plomer, “An ‘Anonymous’ Royalist Writer: Sir Edmond Peirce,” The Library, 3rd ser., 2.6 (1911): 165 (164–72). 162 This anonymous broadside was reprinted in L’Estrange His Apology where L’Estrange takes credit for it (96–97). 163 Plomer, 165, 170. 164 It was printed about a week before the new Parliament sat, which was on March 6 (Anchitell Grey, ed., Debates of the House of Commons from 1667 to 1694, 10 vols. [London, 1769], 7:32). 165 R. C. Richardson writes that this pamphlet was “Aimed at both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics.” “Re-fighting the English Revolution: John

Epistolary Fiction  83

66 1 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

176 177 178 179 80 1 181

182 183

Nalson (1637–1686) and the Frustrations of Late Seventeenth-Century English Historiography,” European Review of History 14.1 (Mar. 2007): 16n8 (1–20). CJ, 9:572; Grey, 7:32. Grey, 7:104. Grey, 7:105, 103. Grey, 7:104. Grey, 7:164. Grey, 7:167. Grey, 7:104, 32; Knights, Politics, 164. ODNB, 46:131. Quoted in Plomer, 164. July 16 is the date on the Penn letter, though expressed according to the old Quaker calendar as “the 16 day of the fifth month in the year” ([B4]). The La Chaise letter is probably a translation of a French original, Lettre du Pere La Chaise, Confesseur du Roy de France, au Pere Peters, Confesseur du Roy d’Angleterre (1688)—though the letter also exists in Dutch; both were printed in the Dutch Republic according to Paul Begheyn (­ Jesuit Books in the Dutch Republic and Its Generality Lands, 1567–1773: A ­Bibliography [Leiden: Brill, 2014], 203). ODNB, 43:906. The text is taken from Letter from Father La Chaise beginning in the middle of the first column of A3v and ending roughly at the first third of the second column on [A4v]. Emma Bergin, “Defending the True Faith: Religious Themes in Dutch Pamphlets on England, 1688–1689,” in War and Religion after Westphalia, 1648–1713, ed. David Onnekink (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 235 (217–50). Vincent Buranelli, “William Penn and James II,” Proceedings of the ­A merican Philosophical Society 104.1 (Feb. 1960): 37 (35–53). Buranelli, 37, 42. The broadside was printed sometime after September 28, the date given to the letter. See McCoog, 93, on this letter: it shares a date with the date William proclaimed he would invade England. It is reprinted in A Sixth Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs (1689 / S3929). The fictional Rebells Letter to the Pope (1642, Jan. 20 / R602-3) was also “Sent and communicated by an Irish Priest unto his friends here in ­England” (quoting from R602). See McCoog, 102, on circular letters. The letter from an unnamed Jesuit in Liège to a Jesuit in Freiburg began life as an authentic letter but was modified (possibly by Gilbert Burnet) before it saw print (McCoog, 102). The other two letters are purely fictitious, both translations (with minor changes) from French or Dutch sources (the letter from Petre to La Chaise in Three Letters is indicated as “Translated from the French” [4]); none of the French or Dutch originals gives dates to the fictitious letters. Petre’s letter to La Chaise exists in French as Lettre du R. P. Peters, Jésuite, Premier Aumonier du Roi d’Angleterre, Écrite au R. P. La Chaize (1688?) and in Dutch as Brief van den Eerwaerdigen Pater Peters, Jesuit, Aelmoessenier van den Koning van Engelant, Geschreven aen den Eerwaerdigen Vader La Chaize (1688), the former printed in the Dutch Republic (Begheyn, 204). La Chaise’s letter to Petre exists as Réponse du R. P. La Chaise, Confesseur du Roi Tres-Chretien, a la Lettre Du R. P. Peters (1688) and Antwoort van den Eerwaerdigen Vader La Chaise, Biechtvader van den Alder-Christelyckten Koninck, op den Brief van den Eerwaerdigen Vader Peters (1688), the latter printed in the Dutch Republic (Begheyn, 202).

84  Epistolary Fiction 184 J. R. Jones, The Revolution of 1688 in England (New York: Norton, 1972), 227. A contemporary author uses this letter as evidence that James II was a Jesuit (Robert Ferguson, attr., A Representation of the Threatning Dangers Impending over Protestants in Great Brittain [1687 / F757], 11). 185 I quote from T1099A. 186 See J. F. Bosher, “The Franco-Catholic Danger, 1660–1715,” History 79.255 (Feb. 1994): 5–30. 187 Licensed January 18. It is also in Fourteen Papers (1689 / B5794, F1682). 188 The title page indicates it was licensed, but no entry for the third collection appears in the Stationers’ Register, though the first and second collections were registered the same day, December 24 (G. E. Briscoe Eyre and G. R. Rivington, eds., A Transcript of the Registers of the ­Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708, 3 vols. [London: Privately Printed, 1913–1914], 3:339). Three Letters may be derived from Burnet’s Third Collection rather than from a French or Dutch original. See also ­McCoog, 98–99. T900 is also identified as C5169A on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. 189 See Schneider, 91–101, for more on letters as subversive communication. 190 The imprint is dated 1688, but it is likely Lady Day dating. 191 ESTC notes that these two can also be found printed on the recto and verso of the same broadsheet. 192 Francis Young, “‘An Horrid Popish Plot’: The Failure of Catholic Aspirations in Bury St. Edmunds, 1685–88,” Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 41 (2006): 218 (209–25). 193 Young, 218; William L. Sachse, “The Mob and the Revolution of 1688,” Journal of British Studies 4.1 (Nov. 1964): 26–27, 34–35 (23–40). 194 The plot in which Bridgeman, Cary, and Culpepper were indirectly accused is in A Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman, the Fourth of January (1642) examined in Chapter 4 (198–202); for Strafford, it is the “letter to a great lady” epistle. 195 George Campbell, Imposter at the Bar: William Fuller, 1670–1733 ­(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1961), 155–56. In both Fuller’s Brief Discovery (18, 43) and his Further Confirmation (5) there is mention of this letter. 196 See notes to M2261A (ESTC). 197 At the Council-Chamber in Whitehall, Monday the 22 of October, 1688 (1688 / E2882), 18–19; Campbell, 131. 198 F2485 numbers only 24 pages; a variant of F2485 numbers 64 pages. I used the latter. 199 LJ, 17:18; The Tryal of William Fuller (1702 / N13668). 200 Campbell, 184, 185. 201 Tryal of Fuller, 5. 202 Tryal of Fuller, 12. Fuller accused some English ministers of taking bribe money from France in Twenty Six Depositions and Original Letters of the Late King’s was supposed to document this (Campbell, 195). 203 Kate Loveman, Reading Fictions, 1660–1740: Deception in English Literary and Political Culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 121. 204 See John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: William Heinemann, 1972), 68, 73, 74, 79, 136. 205 Elizabeth Cook, Epistolary Bodies: Gender and Genre in the ­Eighteenth-Century Republic of Letters (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 16.

2 Epistolary Satire in Pamphlet, Broadside, and Newsbook Publication

Write me a letter that may fully crush em, And not such tickling lines as onely brush em —The Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium (1641)1

Andrew McRae in his Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State writes toward the conclusion that “The exuberance of pamphleteering [after 1640] stretched the already capacious category of satire. … Writers … took fresh approaches to the writing of satire.”2 One of these a­ pproaches was to place satire in an epistolary framework. Satirical letters of this sort consist of first-person discourses where the letters are as if written by living individuals to make them (and often their correspondents) appear ridiculous, ludicrous, or otherwise laughable since the letters written in the names of these individuals are typically self-mocking, self-­ incriminating ones.3 In contrast to the previous chapter, where I examined several fictional letters from individuals constructed to make those individuals appear dangerous or threatening, in this chapter I assess fictional satirical letters whose authors make their victims appear derisory and preposterous precisely to diminish threat or danger, to ­castigate or punish them. I hope in this chapter to continue to make some progress in sorting out the mass of pamphlet material designated as letters during the century, specifically those letters that have a condemnatory, satirical, or libelous character. To render the satires effective as ideological statements aimed at specific political or religious adversaries, the authors of these satires in epistolary form name names. Only in relatively few cases do the authors of print letters placed in the pens of others identify themselves in the pamphlets or broadsides, while in other cases fic­ hapter 1, tional personae are invented to act as the letter writers. As in C prosopographia and prosopopoeia constitute the rhetorical strategies employed by the authors composing these epistolary satires. The type of epistolary satire I assess in this chapter therefore does not include the Drydenesque sort of satirical verse epistle such as those in Robert Gould’s Poems, Chiefly Consisting of Satyrs and Satyrical

86  Epistolary Satire Epistles (1689 / G1431) or prose satire in epistolary form such as the comic fictional letters in Nicholas Breton’s A Poste with a Madde Packet of Letters (1602 / 3684). Rather, I investigate satirical letters in pamphlets, broadsides, and newsbooks that masquerade as if exchanged by the individuals designated as the correspondents, usually famous (or infamous) individuals; my aim is to demonstrate how and why authors manipulated the character of these individuals to forward chiefly political and religious objectives by making their victims appear ridiculous. This sort of material was commonly published beginning in 1641, but has not been extensively examined either in terms of the epistolary genre or in terms of the satirical mode—no doubt because it is a large and amorphous subgenre.4 In addition, and perhaps more troublesome, this material does not fit conveniently into the standard definitions and formulations of satire that have governed literary criticism since the 1940s. 5 It is sometimes difficult to judge whether a fictional letter belongs here, as a satirical letter, depicting the letter writer as laughable and ridiculous, or in Chapter 1, as a straightforward letter, portraying the letter writer as dangerous and threatening. Indeed, some letters of a satirical nature may have been understood (or even intended to be understood) as ironic and serious at once: recognized as satirical letters by the informed, but as genuine letters by the uninformed, those not conversant with the sometimes complex cultural narratives circulating about the individuals in whose pens the letters were placed. Fake letters of this sort might have been taken as authentic letters by the uninformed, ­letters setting out what their correspondents in point of fact wrote—as letters were commonly believed to be transparent manifestations of one’s true thoughts: they are “Fenestra in Pectore … the best Casements, whereby men disclose themselves,” as Thomas Forde puts it.6 Some authors of satirical letters without a doubt modulated the comic or parodic properties of their attacks carefully; that is, not all satirical letters are outrageous exaggerations of their victims (or, to adapt Shakespeare, not all satirical letters have their writers rant in Cambyses’s vein). In other words, letters as if written by the satirized individuals may offer feasible representations of those individuals, the letters illustrating that they actually think the ridiculous, stupid, or immoral things they are writing. The straightforward title of The Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker (1660, Jan. 3T / L3048), for example, belies a satirical letter in which the character of Major General John Lambert is portrayed as unpredictable, unprincipled, and unbalanced through subtle comic methods readers may or may not recognize. Taken either as fictional or as authentic, such letters could nonetheless project the ideological or propagandistic aims intended. In writing on libel, McRae refers to this practice as the “artful confusion of the categories of fact and fiction,” a strategy meant to produce specific persuasive

Epistolary Satire  87 outcomes.7 Harold Love provides a somewhat different example of this potential using a satirical manuscript verse epistle, “Letter of the Duke of Monmouth to the King.” Love writes that “a first line that seems to promise a sympathetic treatment is rapidly undercut: Disgrac’d, undone, forlorn, made Fortune’s sport, Banish’d the kingdom first, and then the Court; Out of my places turn’d, and out of doors, And made the meanest of your sons of whores, The scene of laughter, and the common chats Of your salt bitches and your other brats; Forc’d to a private life, to whore and drink, On my past grandeur and my folly think. Would I had been the brat of some mean drab Whom fear or shame had caus’d to choke or stab, Rather than be the issue of a king And by him made so wretched, scorn’d a thing. What little cause hath mankind to be proud Of honor, birth, the idols of the crowd! Have I abroad in battles honor won To be at home dishon’rably undone? … One can imagine this being read by Tories sober and Whigs drunk in the full conviction that the author was of their own persuasion,” Love concludes.8 John Dryden’s “Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire,” printed as part of his dedication to The Satires of Decimus ­Junius Juvenalis … and of Aulus Persius Flaccus (1693 / J1288), is relevant here not only because it was composed within the period of this investigation, but also because it was largely responsible for the direction criticism took in the subsequent centuries—a definition of satire that excludes epistolary satire and indeed many of the native print ­satires written during the seventeenth century.9 Dryden’s prescriptive pronouncement of what satire should be—concerned with a single theme or topic, and offering a moral precept along with its opposed vice—­ consists of a set of rules that have dominated modern critical evaluations of satire; twentieth-century criticism took up Dryden’s prescriptions, which “hardened into dogma,” as Dustin Griffin puts it.10 Customary definitions of satire, however, prove ineffective in defining epistolary satire for several reasons. First, most modern evaluations of satire are predicated on author-centered paradigms (since the 1960s most criticism has focused on the satire of a single, usually canonical, writer).11 Because the vast majority of the satirical letters I examine were written in the names of others, their actual authors are not designated—and often never subsequently identified. Second, there is often no possibility

88  Epistolary Satire of correcting the vices of the victims of this sort of satire since their subjects are frequently incorrigible—Satan and popes, for instance. Third, epistolary satires composed in the pens of others always rail against specific individuals, never just at general vices—they name names. Because these epistolary satires do not conform to customary or comprehensive definitions of satire, they require examination expressly in light of their unique sociohistorical circumstances. In his “Discourse,” Dryden favors a certain strain of formal verse ­satire over native lampoon. Dryden’s equivocations, however, allow one to distinguish alternative possibilities for the project of satire. As Dryden puts it, a “sort of Satire, which is known in England by the Name of Lampoon, is a dangerous sort of Weapon, and for the most part Unlawful,” and is essentially what is written by “our common Libellers.”12 Yet Dryden also acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons why one might write a lampoon: [one] Reason, which may justifie a Poet, when he writes against a particular Person … [is] when he is become a Publick Nuisance. … They may and ought to be upbraided with their Crimes and Follies: Both for their own amendment, if they are not yet incorrigible; and for the Terrour of others, to hinder them from falling into those Enormities, which they see are so severely punish’d, in the Persons of others … [This] is absolutely of a Poet’s Office to perform: But how few Lampooners are there now living, who are capable of this Duty!13 Dryden associates libel and lampoon, as it was common to do under the perceptions of the century, and distinguishes these from satire proper.14 Yet Dryden’s prevarications demonstrate how unstable the categories were since he asserts that lampoons may indeed be composed under ­certain circumstances and that it is a poet’s responsibility to do so (elsewhere Dryden states that he occasionally composed lampoons himself). Dryden’s equivocations may be taken positively to define and understand native pamphlet satire generally and epistolary satire specifically. Uses of the terms satire, libel, and pamphlet throughout the s­ eventeenth century were indeed imprecise. Writers often shifted the associations between libel, satire, and pamphlets depending on the emphases sought.15 John Bond, for instance, in his The Poets Knavery Discovered (B3580B, B3582), decrying against the increase in lying pamphlets in early 1642, rails, “Now I can accuse none, but these temporizing Pamphlet-­mongers, who for a little mercenary gaine, and profit, infused plenty of Gall, and Wormewood into their lying, and Satyricall lines” ([A3v]).16 Bond exploits conventional tropes of satire, the use of gall and wormwood as medicinal correctives, to pejoratively characterize lying merely for monetary gain, where Bond links “lying” (not truth-telling, the conventional

Epistolary Satire  89 aim of satire) with the “Satyricall.”17 Richard Allestree in The Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety (1667 / A1097-A) maneuvers other distinctions in criticizing pamphleteers. Allestree writes, “‘Tis too obvious that the Satyr has usurpt the chair, and polemick Discourses are degenerated into libels and invectives, our Controvertists fall from arguments to reproaches” (280).18 Satire and libel here are fundamentally identical, but together constitute a debased form of rhetoric in negotiating controversy. The anonymous author of the broadsheet A Letter of Advice to the Petitioning Apprentices (1681 / L1569) clearly distinguishes between the “Learned Satyrest” and “Pensionary Scriblers” (2) to define a sharp demarcation between writing satire and writing pamphlets, while ­Samuel Rid in Martin Mark-All, Beadle of Bridewell (1610 / 21028.5) calls Thomas Dekker “an upstart pamphletmaker and a most iniurious and Satiricall Libeller,” where each of the terms pamphlet, libel, and satire is equally depreciatory.19 No fixed definitions or distinct relationships between these terms existed; yet despite the shifts in emphases, pamphleteering was more consistently tied to libel and lampoon than it was to satire, which is also reflected in Dryden’s perception of the terms. Printed epistolary satires of the period would therefore have been characterized as libel and lampoon rather than as satire. Printed epistolary satires also have more in common with manuscript libels than with formal satire as defined by Dryden, even though publication intends wider circulation. Satirical or libelous letters written in the first person in the names of others indeed had manifestations in handwritten letters. In Gobert et al. v. Brewster (1606), for instance, a libel case tried in the Star Chamber, it was claimed that Thomas Brewster composed a libelous letter in verse in the name of John Gobert (with the court’s clarifications in parentheses), which begins, I John Goborne alias Gobert … beinge a cuckouldly clowne have gyven the use of my wief (meaning the said Luce [Gobert)] unto the gowne, (meaninge the said [cleric] Edward Astill) … [I] am a lord in London of the blackfriars, and also the veriest cuckold in Northampton or leicestersheres, if I … be a cuckould it is no matter for that is horned luck, because others my wief (meaninge the said Luce) do fucke.20 Of libels written after 1660 later collected in Poems on Affairs of State, John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, ventriloquizes John Sheffield, 3rd Earl of Mulgrave, in “An Epistolary Essay from M. G. to O. B. upon Their Mutual Poems,” a poem that began circulating in 1676. 21 Politically oriented first-person verse epistles are exemplified by “Letter of the Duke of Monmouth to the King” and “The King’s Answer,” a set of poems written after James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, had returned to England without Charles II’s permission where an authentic

90  Epistolary Satire letter that Monmouth had sent to Charles likely served as the inspiration for the satires. 22 Much like the authors of manuscript libel, the authors of print letters placed in the pens of others do not normally identify themselves; they may, however, be surmised or identified afterward. In addition, epistolary satire in manuscript such as “A Letter of the Duke of Monmouth to the King” and “The King’s Answer” was also circulated for ideological purposes. The tie between manuscript satire-libel and pamphlet satire-libel persisted, even after the lapse of the Licensing Act in May 1679 when, as Love puts it, “Much material that would formerly have been restricted to manuscript could now be printed.”23 Since the letters I investigate were as if written by the individuals identified and subsequently made public, they reflect the legally defined early modern phenomenon of self-libeling. For instance, the judgment on a defamation case of 1562 tried in the Common Pleas states that no action on the case lay upon this matter, because the letter (which was written between the defendant and the plaintiff) was neither published [i.e., made public] nor made known to others, and if the plaintiff had not declared what the letter was[,] others could not [have known], and therefore it was no slander to the plaintiff except by his wish. 24 In other words, the defendant had sent the plaintiff a private letter; but since the plaintiff showed the letter or expressed its contents to a third party, the plaintiff was responsible for making public the letter and in essence libeled himself. Later cases determined likewise. In Barrow v. Lewellin (1615), a case of a libelous letter, it was resolved, that … the plaintiff in this case could not have an action of the case [at common law], because it [the letter] was not published, and therefore could not be to his defamation, without his own fault of divulging it. 25 More bluntly, a case reporter of Darcy v. Markham (1616) writes that “if the party to whom the letter is written publishes it, it is his folly, and he defames himself.”26 Edward Coke in Edwards v. Wooton (1607) recognizes that one may even compose a libel against oneself and that this deserves punishment: Note, that by the civil law, if any person hath (to disable himself to bear any office, or for any other purpose), made a libel against himself, he shall be punished for it. And so it seems to me, he should be in the Star-Chamber, for this is an offence to the King and the commonwealth. 27

Epistolary Satire  91 In short, the phenomenon of self-libeling was a recognized one, so that individuals who made public letters in which they had been libeled, or made public libels they had written about themselves, those persons were guilty of their own defamation. Through this rationale, authors could therefore develop satirical representations of political or religious adversaries by using print letters, as published documents, to reflect the legal phenomenon of self-libeling, making it appear that the letters demonstrate their writers’ own foolishness in defaming themselves. The epistolary satires printed during the seventeenth century were specific, topical, and occasional in much the same way as those materials ­ osenheim’s collected in Poems on Affairs of State.28 Although Edward R definition of satire as an “attack by means of a manifest fiction upon discernible historical particulars” is not without its problems (as McRae points out) it most accurately describes the kinds of epistolary satire most often printed during the century. 29 Due to the narrow range of texts I examine, generically speaking, I cannot offer an alternative definition of satire but agree with Kirk Combe, who argues that “the real work involved in satiric analysis is that of a case-by-case cultural study. … Perhaps no other genre calls out more emphatically for cultural criticism”; Combe continues: “Satire is a product of a particular person writing at a particular time for a particular audience within a particular society.”30 These statements define my approach, as well, since I attempt to embed the epistolary satires I assess within their particular cultural narratives in order to understand them. Moreover, I contend that the principal purpose of these satires was not to encourage virtue but rather to promote an ideology; they were not composed to correct morally their victims or to set out ethical precepts, but to forward political or religious objectives. 31 Significantly, however, the language of good and evil was often employed in these satires in the service of ideological or controversial goals. Therefore, since reaching an objective or philosophical truth was not the chief intention of this sort of satire, I attempt to answer a question posed by McRae: “What happens when satirists abandon their commitment to revealing truths, in favour of a willingness to shape perceptions and delineate confrontations?”32 Now, this is not to say that some of the authors of these satires, in engineering political or religious perceptions, believed their perspectives were anything but true; however, some authors of letters written in the names of others failed to adhere to the same ideological standpoint throughout their writing careers—­Marchamont Nedham is a well-known illustration. As Jason Peacey puts it, ­Nedham “having changed sides actually reflected a response to changing circumstances.”33 And of course there was always the possibility that an author of an epistolary satire composed it solely for money or reward, even though the resulting satire might “shape perceptions and delineate confrontations.”

92  Epistolary Satire Epistolarity was maneuvered in rhetorically purposeful ways in c­ ertain print satires taking the letter form; the textual, documentary, and transmissible properties of handwritten letters were frequently exploited in print letters to advantageous rhetorical effect, while the language of manuscript letter writing was adapted to code sincerity, authenticity, and veracity in a letter prepared for print. In composing epistolary satires in particular, authors parodied standard epistolary practices, conventions, and tropes; they often approached the subjects and the ­circumstances of the satires ironically since the letters were as if written by the v­ ictims ­ irect influence of the satires themselves. Although not necessarily a d on the printed epistolary satires of the following century, Epistolae ­Obscurorum Virorum (The Letters of Obscure Men), first published in 1515, is an early and better-known analogue of the type of letters I ­examine, whose authors employed tactics similar to the ones used by those composing English print epistolary satires. Letters of Obscure Men developed out of the controversy surrounding Johann Reuchlin’s defense of Jewish books. Ulrich von Hutton and others composed letters as if by the enemies of Reuchlin, inventing fictional correspondents as well, to make those critical of Reuchlin appear ridiculous and ignorant; in the third enlarged edition, letters appearing more genuine were included “­making the volume more satirically compelling,” as Lisa ­Jardine puts it.34 Letters of Obscure Men, then, is useful in considering the ­concept of “mimic satire” in relation to subsequently published print letters: James Mehl writes that “the authors [of Letters of Obscure Men] contributed to an especially creative version of mimic satire, a satire that relied on a literary form of irony supposedly dependent on stating the opposite or contrary of the intended meaning.”35 Although mimesis is not always—or even necessarily—based on the stylistic characteristics of the individuals being mocked, it may be a foundational element of this sort of satire. Peter Schäffer has observed furthermore of Letters of ­Obscure Men that “a few overly serious readers were taken in and accepted the letters at face value.”36 As I have suggested here and in Chapter 1, by not excessively exaggerating the satire, by blurring the factual-fictional boundary, authors of such letters permitted them to be mistaken for real ones; the letters may have been able to register their persuasive points that way. Margaret Anne Doody has remarked on the uses of ventriloquism in a similar way in outlining the satire of the civil war period, writing of satire in which “the speaker [is] damning himself” where “The style that might be used quite seriously and genuinely by the enemy is perverted.”37 Moreover, she continues, “the poets of the Civil War took something previously occasional and intermittent, one manner of irony, and brought it to the fore in a continuous parodic use of the enemy’s voice.”38 I extend and specify in this chapter these comments about ventriloquizing voices by looking expressly at their manifestation in printed satirical letters.

Epistolary Satire  93

Mocking Royalists and Royalist Mockery Doody refers to the “combative ballads” of the civil war period that mimic the voices of adversaries.39 One of these is A Letter Sent by Sir John Suckling from France Deploring His Sad Estate and Flight (1641 / L1591).40 The satirical letter itself bears the date June 16, 1641, a little over a month after Suckling fled England for France on May 6 after being implicated in the first Army Plot. It is signed “J. S. K.” (6)—that is, John Suckling, Knight. Like many of the pamphlets published after Suckling’s flight, this one is in the ­letter form as the most logical one to allow Suckling to communicate as if from abroad. The content is presented in the first person (except in a few stanzas where Suckling writes about himself in the third person). No recipient is named; indeed, the confessional mode of this letter is emphasized in that it was constructed as a sort of “open letter” published for all to read. It begins, Goe, dolefull sheete to everie street Of London round about-a, And tell ‘um all thy masters fall, That lived bravely mought-a, Sir John in fight as brave a wight, As the Knight of the Sun-a, Is forced to goe away with woe And from his countrie run-a[.] (1) Confessional self-mockery is foremost—“sheete” is both a piece of paper and a white garment worn during public shaming punishments. Suckling not only admits that he fled England in a craven fashion but also reflects on his cowardice during his military engagement with General ­A lexander Leslie during the second Bishops’ War of 1640, in which Suckling retreated from battle: I that marcht forth, into the North, And went up hills a main-a With sword and lance like King of France, And so came downe againe-a. (2) ­ nowledge Understanding the satire fully would have depended on one’s k of recent history (the second Bishops’ War), current events (the first Army Plot; Suckling’s flight from England), and the central cultural narrative of the dissolute cavalier. Suckling is made to write, for instance, I that in court have made such sport As never yet was found-a, And tickled all both great and small The Maides of honour round-a.

94  Epistolary Satire I that did play both night and day And revelled here and there-a, Had change of suits, made layes to lutes And bluster’d everie where-a[.] (2) Suckling confesses that his carousing and philandering serve to mark his behavior as effeminate and courtly—that is, nonmilitary. In other stanzas Suckling is made to confess that he has plagiarized, a “self-critique” of his literary achievement: I that could write and well indite As ‘tis to Ladies known-a, And bore the praise for songs and playes Far more then were mine owne-a[.] (2) In fact, the epistle itself, in ballad meter, effectively transforms Suckling from poet to poetaster by demonstrating Suckling writing in a “debased” verse form. By having Suckling write a letter about himself and then giving it widespread publication, the author of the pamphlet amplifies the ridicule by purporting that Suckling had declared his deficiencies for all to read as if in deliberate self-libeling. The confessional mode in which this letter takes part is indeed one of the characteristic components of the ventriloquized satirical letter. Royalist publisher Humphrey Moseley responded to such material, including a fake letter we saw in the prior chapter—Coppy of Generall Lesley’s Letter to Sir John Suckling with Sir John Sucklings Answer to His Letter (1641)—in his preface to his posthumous collection of Suckling’s works, Fragmenta Aurea: A Collection of All the Incomparable Peeces Written by Sir John Suckling (1646 / S6126, S6126A-B): “In this Age of Paper-prostitutions, a man may buy the reputation of some ­Authors into the price of their Volume; but know, the Name that leadeth into this Elysium, is sacred to Art and Honour” (To the Reader, A3v).41 Moseley adds, “he that is bold upon his unequall Stock, to traduce this Name, or Learning, will deserve to be condemned againe into Ignorance his Originall sinne, and dye in it” (To the Reader, A3v–[A4]). Moseley recuperates Suckling’s honor—questioned, for instance, in his retreat from Leslie and in his flight from England; by alluding to anti-Suckling pamphlets that had aspersed his reputation and writings (“traduce[d] this Name”), Moseley vindicates Suckling and his literary achievement. Indeed, by placing in Fragmenta Aurea several of Suckling’s letters under a separate head as Letters to Divers Eminent Personages as part of Suckling’s posthumous literary remains, Moseley indirectly responds to the phony letters composed in Suckling’s name. The letters included consist chiefly of love letters, but letters of advice, comfort, jocularity,

Epistolary Satire  95 and compliment are also represented.42 The last letter in Letters to ­Divers Eminent Personages, however—“To Mr. Henry German, in the beginning of Parliament, 1640”—is expressly political. Although I cannot demonstrate a conclusive cause-and-effect relationship between prior epistolary condemnation in print and the letters published in Fragmenta Aurea, that Fragmenta Aurea contains epistolary material at all is noteworthy in that it was among the first publications in England to include and set under a separate head a significant number of letters in the posthumous literary remains of a secular English author.43 While Fragmenta Aurea is certainly a rejoinder to anti-Suckling satire, the letters Moseley decided to incorporate in it may also constitute a specific response in part to the epistolary “Paper-prostitutions” printed beforehand. In a fashion, then, Moseley counters the cultural narrative of Suckling as dissolute cavalier; rather, Suckling’s name “is sacred to Art and Honour.” The satirical The Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium to … Alderman Abel and M. Kilvert (1641 / C6153), like Letter Sent by Sir John Suckling, is a letter in verse. In this publication, B ­ acchus joins a group of dissipated cavaliers in Elysium—soldiers, wicked clergy, poets (among them Ben Jonson)—in order to carouse. During the feast, they decide that “they should send a letter of consolation, / Unto these two late Prisoners” (A2v); that is, they decide to write a joint letter to William Abell and Richard Kilvert, who were both imprisoned by early 1641 for imposing illegal duties on wine, and who were popularly accused of plotting to enrich themselves through a wine monopoly.44 The roaring boys praise Abell and Kilvert for what they “did t’abate the Luxury of the Time, / For when wine is pull’d downe, sure youth will rage / And then no doubt ‘twill prove a drunken age” ([A3]). Of course, the author of this pamphlet condemns dissolute cavalier culture as well as Abell and Kilvert, but does so within two distinct modes: first, an ironic approach through the letter of the cavaliers to Abell and Kilvert, while an oration from Bacchus, which follows the letter in the pamphlet, directly condemns Abell, Kilvert, and cavalier culture with a “straight” evaluation of the circumstances. The author of this pamphlet responds to recent news and rehearses cultural narratives about degenerate cavaliers to offer a political (in the guise of a moral) message. The letter form also serves as a logical means of transmission from hell to the upper world. Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes, in fact, takes part in the wider genre of infernal satire. This genre had a long history, and letters from hell specifically ventriloquize the voices of real individuals as well as supernatural entities.45 Most of these satires, Benjamin Boyce writes, were aimed specifically at religious targets: “it is not surprising that the English infernal satires were almost without exception anti-Popish”; hence, Boyce continues, that “when the Puritan opposition to Charles and Laud reached its culmination, there was a sudden supply of news from the lower world.”46

96  Epistolary Satire Royalist propagandist John Taylor also wrote expressly epistolary s­ atire to criticize Parliament. In A Letter Sent to London from a Spie at Oxford … to His Honourable and Worshipfull Friends M. Pym, M. Martin &c., and to All the Worthy Members, Authours, Abettours, and Aiders in or of This Holy Rebellion, Which Letter Was Intercepted and Taken Prisoner by John Taylor (Oxford, 1643 / T474), Taylor takes the role of a parliamentary spy stationed in Oxford.47 The oxymoron “holy rebellion” of the title indicates that the letter should not be mistaken for a genuine one; it is a signal to the reader to be aware of irony, inversion, and double meaning. Taylor’s basic method is to engineer a self-­condemnation as if by a creature of Parliament by having the spy undercut the affirmations he makes, thus transforming them into denunciations. In celebrating the hardships in Oxford caused by the civil war, for instance, the spy boasts that the extreme necessitie that those parts are in through the scarcitie of all kinde of Victuals, makes me conceive that the Malignant partie cannot hold out long, whereby it may be hoped that Your Worships may be advanced to rule, and the King to obey as You have long desired and laboured for. To bring which to passe, You with my Selfe and the rest of our Adherents have most liberally adventured our soules to make thousands of our credulous Followers lose their lives, estates, allegeance, and salvations; and all these vertues you have painfully practiced under the maske, vizard, vaile, shadow, colour, or shew of Religion and Reformation. (1) Taylor also plays on the narrative of parliamentary greed, a rationale royalists used to define Parliament’s genuine reason for war—to pilfer property. Other parts of the letter are overtly self-condemning in the confessional mode that often typifies these sorts of satirical letters. The spy admits, “The truth is, that we are all deceived in the successe of our Plots and Projects” (4), and that “some few [of us] are grieved, and do repent for that they have been mislead and bewitched … to withstand the Truth, and so hainously to offend so good, so gracious, and so pious a King” (14). Self-condemnation is also exemplified in how Taylor gives even epistolary secrecy conventions double meanings—both to condemn the correspondents and to implicate Parliament in the kind of ciphering they frequently accused the royalists of using. In requesting a return letter, the spy writes let me heare from you the next returne of Tom Long [a stock name for a letter carrier], he is the one that you may confide in, for he may be trusted with untold hail-stones, you know that your name begins with a Greek Π, and mine a ʍ for Humphrey. (14)

Epistolary Satire  97 On the face of it, “Π” is simply acting as a cipher to disguise the ­identity of the addressees, but the reference is also to the gallows, which the Greek letter Π resembled—and of course both “Pym” and “Parliament” begin with the letter P.48

Satirical Letters of Lucifer Newes from Hell, Rome, and the Inns of Court Wherein Is Sett Forth the Coppy of a Letter Written from the Divell to the Pope (1641 / M42A) is a pamphlet that had expressly religious propaganda as its goal.49 The association of popes—in this case, Urban VIII—with Satan was a long-standing one. The parodic elements include direction to the carrier, “Haste: Haste: Poste: Haste,” and Satan’s lengthy salutation mimics an official letter of state: Your intire Prince and God of this world, Lucifer, Prince of Darknes, and Superstition, King of stiks and Phlegeton, Suppreame Lord of Ghehenna … and sole commander of Seeberia, Alteenia, Pecheora, & of all the Infernall furies … / Sendeth Greeting. (1) In his letter, Satan rehearses past attempts to destroy Protestant England (such as the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot), moves to relating his success so far (such as the dissolution of the 1640 parliament by “the Lordly Bushops” [2, 4, 5]), and encourages the success of future plots. The naval battles fought between September 18 and October 21, 1639, by Dutch admiral Maarten van Tromp and Spanish admiral Antonio D’Oquendo, during which Tromp defeated a reconstituted Armada, are mourned by the devil as “the dissturbance of Martain Harper Trump, here below, [who] Failed of that Sucses which we together with them [English Catholics] expected and hoped for, To our no lesse sorrow then theirs” (5). 50 The author yokes together past and recent history with current events and collective imagination to argue the danger of Catholic aggression, both open and surreptitious. The specific interest of this pamphlet, as a letter participating in contemporary anti-Catholic narratives, is in the postscript, in which Satan refers to “a most scandelous petition to be delivered by asmall number of heriticall Lords unto their King at Yorke, which doth not a little touch our honour, and the discovery of this our present stratagem” (7). A postscript in a handwritten letter was added to include the most recent news, learned after the body of the letter had been written but before it could be posted; but in this letter, invented for print, the postscript is transformed into a rhetorical tool that allows the letter (as ideological statement) to tap into the most current events in order to galvanize its propagandistic points. The petition from the Lords mentioned in this postscript is dated

98  Epistolary Satire as if presented to Charles at York on September 12, 1640.51 The parts of the petition most germane to the anti-Catholic attitudes of the pamphlet are its recognition of “the great increase of popery, & imploying of popish recusants & others ill affected unto religion … in places of power & trust, especially in comanding of men & armse, both in the feeld, & in sundry other Coumpties of this your Realme”; and in its concern for “The great mischiefe that may fall upon this Kingdom, if the intention which hath beene creadibly reported, of the bringing in of Irish and forraigne forces should take effect” (9). It is therefore cogent enough why the devil in writing to the pope would have cause to fret about a petition such as this reaching the king, since the devil has wished throughout the letter the success of Catholic intrigue and foreign invasion. The author of this pamphlet felt obliged to insert a verse following the satirical letter, lines placed just before the petition of the Lords to Charles. The poem, in part, makes the irony clear as an explanatory gloss in the event that the reader missed the ironic points the letter was making: Consider this and marck the substance well It seemes a letter from the sinnd of hell. What er the form or method seeme to be Th’ intent thereof, was quite the contrary[.] (7) The verse was placed where it is so that the following petition would not be mistaken for a parodic, satirical one, especially since the pamphlet also contains a fake “coppy of certaine artikles of agreement betweene the Divill, the Pope, and divers others” (as the title page calls it) that in turn follows the genuine petition of the Lords. In this regard, the structure of the pamphlet resembles Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium where the satirical, ironic letter is followed by a serious, straightforward rendering of the same message to ensure the reader comprehended the intended ideological aim. I Marry, Sir, Heere Is Newes Indeed, Being the Copie of a Letter Which the Devil Sent to the Pope of Rome and Kept in the Conclave of Cardinals Ever since the Yeare 1623, and Now Published for the Helpe and Comfort of All Romish Catholickes in This Time of Their Great Necessity to Incourage Them (1642, Dec. 5T / I23) is a parodic letter of encouragement. It consists of a set of seriocomic observations and commands Satan sent to the pope years before, but published in 1642 to hearten Catholics, taking the form of an official diplomatic letter of state.52 In fact, it repeats some of the same formulations of Newes from Hell in both the salutation and the first sentence, which suggests that it was in part copied from or at least inspired by the earlier publication. However, rather than the anti-episcopal satire characteristic of Newes from Hell, the author of I Marry, Sir, Heere Is Newes Indeed offers

Epistolary Satire  99 a recapitulation of the Thirty Years’ War to date in order to apply its c­ ircumstances specifically to late 1642. 53 Satan begins his letter with a catalogue of the “Rebellious Heretickes of the Romish Catholike Religion; I meane the Brittanish, Irish, Danish, and Flemish Hereticks” (1), who have been so weakened that the devil encourages the pope to strike the powers of Protestantism and offers additional aid: I will send you by my servant Charon, foure thousand Tunns of large Canniballs heads sodden in plum Broath, five thousand quarters of Tartarian wheat … five thousand Friers Cowles well lined with Fox-fur: to keepe your Souldiers from the cold … six thousand handkerchiffes made of Nuns Skinnes perfumed with Muske and Amber-greese. (2–3) As for the navy, Satan adds, I will send you two hundred gallant Asses [i.e., galleasses—Satan admits his English “Arthograthy” is weak] and every one of them shall have sixty whores on a side, punkes five hundred, and strumpets to incourage your Souldiers five thousand. (3) Despite the broad, sometimes scatological nature of the satire, situated as it is in long-standing anti-Catholic diatribe, the pamphlet may be a contemporary response to the formation of the Irish-Catholic Confederation during late 1642, whose ambassadors were recognized by France, Spain, and the Vatican—from which the Irish Confederacy hoped military and financial aid would be forthcoming.54 Satan indeed catalogues, among others, various Hapsburg states and allies, including “the S­ panish and Italian leaders[, ] principall Ass-cistants in this Catholique and holy League” (4), that are ranging against the “Rebellious Heretickes” (1). Although the rationale given for publishing the devil’s letter to the pope is “for the helpe and comfort of all Romish Catholickes,” the Protestant author of the pamphlet is of course offering a divergent religiopolitical position by insinuating a prior pan-European Catholic alliance against Protestantism; despite being ostensibly published for the benefit of ­Catholics, for Protestants the letter is “Newes Indeed” since it reveals Catholic secrets as well as military schemes that have been in motion since 1623. Applied expressly to 1642, however, the author invites the English reader to focus on England alone as the target of a Catholic foreign invasion. A Letter from the Devil to the Pope and His Prelates Written at the Beginning of the Reformation, and Now Published for the Confirmation of Protestants and Confusion of Papists (London?, 1670 / L1517),

100  Epistolary Satire published when Clement X was pope, is a print letter redux (with a few modifications) of the much earlier An Epistle Written from Lucifer … unto … the Persecuting Popish Prelats (1642 / F2089)—a letter “Set forth by Thomas Francklin”—when Urban VIII was in the Vatican. It is another example of the satanic letter of state, a commonly used strategy to frame epistles from hell to exemplify the imperial nature of the correspondence. Epistle Written from Lucifer is not entirely satirical but includes broad satirical passages as when Satan writes to the prelates, We would ye should do our Commendations to our entirely beloved Daughters, Pride, Deceit, Wrath, avarice, Belly-Cheere, and Leachery, and to all other my Daughters, and especially to Lady Symony, which hath made you men, and enriched you, and hath given you Sucke with her own Brests, and weaned you, and therefore in no wise see that you degenerate from her. ([A4]) Retitling the 1670 print letter redux as “Written at the Beginning of the Reformation, and Now Published” serves, as in I Marry, Sir, Heere Is Newes Indeed, to mark the letter as “history” through which the present can be read. There is nothing expressly topical about either the 1642 or the 1670 printing of this letter; neither seems to be responding to any specific news or current event. In fact, the letter’s very generality facilitates its potential to be regarded as a document that could have indeed been written at the beginning of the Reformation. The author of the original, Thomas Francklin, evidently wished to be recognized. This fact suggests that the point of a few of these epistolary satires is to invite the reader into a letter that both author and reader acknowledge is a (fictional) representation of what the devil would likely write to the prelates. The same acknowledgment seems plain in other expressly satirical letters, where the slippage between the genuine author and the ventriloquized victim is exploited for comic (hence persuasive) effect, as we have seen in John Taylor’s Letter Sent to London from a Spie at Oxford … Which Letter Was Intercepted and Taken Prisoner by John Taylor … and Committed to the Presse by the Aforesaid Thorny Ailo, where Taylor—a well-known royalist—telegraphs the fictionality of the ensuing letter by including on the title page his name as interceptor and in anagram (Thorny Ailo) as the individual responsible for bringing the letter to the printer.

Satirical Letters of Popes The semisatirical A Letter from the Pope to His Distressed Sons the Catholicks in England as It Was Intercepted and Now Published (1674 / L1537) is “signed” by Clement IX, who died in 1669, so the letter is

Epistolary Satire  101 rather dated as an intercepted letter, which were typically published (and most effectively employed as propaganda) soon after interception. 55 Yet by belatedly ventriloquizing Clement IX, the author encourages one to reread the past and Clement can therefore compose a last letter “before I take my leave of the World and of you” (3), as he writes. Clement mocks himself in rehearsing a litany of epithets that Protestants have called him: “a blood-sucking Cannibal, a Robber of Churches, a Patron of Heresies, a Father of Falsehood, the Broacher of Quarrells, the Seedman of Sedition, the Infringer of Liberties, the Controler of Princes, the Enemy of Christ, the Monster and Astonishment of Nature” (4) in comic self-libeling, the list made veritable by virtue of its very length. The letter also reveals a threatening dimension: “We have waited long [the pope is made to write], and many of our well-design’d and heroick Plots (such as was the Gun-powder-treason) have miscarryed: but there may come a time when ———” (7). The pamphlet was therefore also meant to encourage a broad fear, and the Gunpowder Plot was always a potent reference point. Letter from the Pope also takes part in contemporary animadversion by the repeated criticism of “D[r]. S.” This is theologian Edward Stillingfleet, the arguments of whose works are referred to disapprovingly by the pope: Dr. S. is “a leading man among these Hereticks” (3), he writes. The pope’s condemnation of Stillingfleet’s written attacks on Catholicism are of course ironic in the satirical logic of the pamphlet, and the pamphlet demonstrates how even satirical fictional letters can ventriloquize their writers to participate in polemical dispute. Like Letter from the Pope to His Distressed Sons, the broadsheet The Pope’s Letter to the Lords in the Tower Concerning the Death of the Late Lord Stafford (1681 / P2936) offers a blend of the satirical and the threatening. This broadsheet was published shortly after the execution of William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford, on December 29, 1680, for his involvement in the Popish Plot—the letter itself is dated “From our Palace in Rome, / this 16th. of Jan. [1681] New-Stile” (verso) and addressed to the four remaining Catholic lords in the Tower. It is generally a letter of encouragement to the men not to despair at Stafford’s execution, yet the encouragement is comically perverted: when Innocent XI is made to write, “it is a most glorious preferment to obtain the Cannonization of being a Saint and Martyr here by us on earth” (recto), he is of course encouraging their execution. Among the targets of the satire are greed, simony, and papal infallibility: the pope will not deviate any ways from that Fundamental Maxim … No Money, no Pater-Noster … for though we Write our selves Servus Servorum, a Servant of Servants, ‘tis mystically meant, of such as serve us with their Purses: but truly our most Glorious Name is not Papa Father, but Piscator the Fisher, for we Hook in all we can. (recto)

102  Epistolary Satire Yet the middle portion of the letter is far more serious, as where Innocent writes that the Jesuits will spread chaos “to highten the feuds, jealousies and fears, already sowed among the People” (verso); this portion of the broadsheet was of course precisely intended to intensify the “jealousies and fears, already sowed among the People” as the result of the Popish Plot. More to the point, Innocent hopes “our Design shall succeed” since the Jesuits in England “have assured us of undoubted Hopes, of Dissolving your dreadful Parliament” (verso)—a Parliament that would no doubt continue to prosecute the remaining four lords. A narrative retailed during the years of the Popish Plot indeed accused Jesuits expressly of controlling the English Parliament, as we saw, for instance, in the prior chapter in Letter from a Jesuit at Paris to His Correspondent in London (1679 / N110). Even though the narrative of Jesuits intruding into state affairs was of long standing, the discovered letters of Edward Colman exchanged with Jesuit François de La Chaise, confessor to Louis XIV—in which he asks La Chaise for money to bribe MPs—likely energized its post-1678 manifestation. 56 The story was reiterated again during the time of the 1688–1689 Revolution: “We have pack’d and regulated all the Corporations to our hearts desire, in order to have good Parliaments,” fictional Jesuits state in A Letter from the Jesuits in the Savoy to the Jesuits at S. Omers (1688 / P101). 57

Newsbook Manifestations As with straightforward fictional letters, satirical fictional letters also saw publication in newsbooks. The “letter from the devil” sort, for instance, appeared in the royalist organ Mercurius Pragmaticus where the devil is made to write to Parliament and the army to cement the alliance between the Prince of Darkness and the Good Old Cause in mid-1659. In the letter Pluto is made to write that under your usual pretence and cloak of Religion, you have ­effected our designs and desires, we give you thanks, not questioning but you will persevere to the end, even to the perfecting the work of desolation, and confusion of all the good people of England. 58 Similar to the devil’s various letters to popes, where the core purpose is to tie together Catholicism and demonism, the drive here is to fix the diabolical with the Rump Parliament. The moral issues invoked in the letter—“perfecting the work of desolation, and confusion of all good people of England” and reference to “those you murder … King Charles, [Christopher] Love, [John] Hewet, cum mille aliis,” for example—are transmuted into ideological ones, since by placing the matters involved in the pen of the devil writing to his agents, the author of the letter removes

Epistolary Satire  103 from possibility the opportunity to reform the character of those who are forever wicked and whose behavior it is not possible to amend. The anger royalists leveled at John Bradshaw—chief justice presiding over King Charles I’s trial for treason and president of the Council of State beginning in May 1649—was expressed in a satirical letter printed in the newsbook Mercurius Pragmaticus (for King Charles II), written as if by Bradshaw’s mother when Bradshaw was attending Gray’s Inn several years earlier.59 The letter is prefaced by a statement suggesting that Oliver Cromwell will soon rid himself of Bradshaw’s services, forcing Bradshaw to return to his days of humble obscurity. The satirist composing the letter following in the name of Bradshaw’s mother mocks Bradshaw as something of an effeminate milksop who had indeed went about inconsequential matters “like a dutifull Son … mindfull of his Mother’s businesse” before being thrust into the national spotlight.60 The letter begins, Son John, When you have dispatched the businesse I last wrote about, I pray you to bring me my Petticoats down for, I think I can sell my best here for as much [as] it cost me. Send my Linnens, and my Prints, and Pewter-pots, and Wheele. Pray you to buy me a Black-Bag for a Girle of 10. years old, of Tafity. Contemporary rumor found reflection in this letter. Royalists described Bradshaw as Cromwell’s pawn, and he is defined as just as subservient to his mother in the letter. There was also a curious story that Bradshaw, “when he was a boy, [ran] from his Father, and followed a Pedlar to sell Laces and Points,” which Mercurius Pragmaticus picked up in an issue roughly five months earlier: “Bradshaw, thou hadst better betake thee to thy former Occupation, and cry, Two Laces a Penny, then to sit at Westminster, and judge your Innocent Soveraigne.”61 There is no evidence, however, that any of this was so, and the association between Bradshaw and these sartorial accessories stemmed from the fact that Bradshaw served as mayor of Congleton, well known for its “Congleton points.”62 Nevertheless, a tie between Bradshaw and transvestitism was energized by this narrative, particularly in relation to the scarlet judicial robes ­Bradshaw was given upon being made head of the commission to try Charles. The connection was drawn again in a satire composed after Bradshaw’s death, in a mock last will and testament that lists, “Item, I give and bequeath unto my familiar and close Friend Mrs. Lenthall the Speakers Lady, as much Scarlet of my High Court of Justice Robes, as will make her a Petticoat.”63 The attack in the letter therefore seems as much about Bradshaw’s submissive effeminacy as about his humble origins. John Crouch began publishing his satirical newsbook Mercurius Democritus in April 1652. There is no doubt, as Jason McElligott puts it, that “The principal aim of this newsbook was to parody the

104  Epistolary Satire lies and exaggerations of the rest of the press by deliberately peddling half-truths and hyperbole”; yet at the same time, Crouch’s political consciousness can be discerned in this newsbook, as Crouch—a loyalist who during the 1650s began to move toward rapprochement with the new regime—offered social, economic, political, and journalistic criticism in his newsbook.64 Indeed, while much of what Crouch included in terms of satirical letters is downright nonsense, bawdry, and misogyny, there are instances where the fake letters Crouch inserted have a distinct political resonance.65 A fictional letter of news written during the first Anglo-Dutch war, as if describing the Dutch fleet in late 1652, is more absurd than jingoistic yet nevertheless offers patriotic attitudes. It begins, “The Newes from Holland is this Week very certain and Remarkable, Their whole Navy being so afflicted and grievously tormented with Ratts and Mice, that they not only devour up all their Victuall, but have eate up most of their Roaps, Sailes and Tacklings … and make great Holes quite thorow the Bottomes and Sides of their Ships,” so that the Dutch begin to regret striking “the first blow against their best Friends the English.”66 As the first Anglo-Dutch war continued, Crouch included similar anti-Dutch material. One such letter “from a bonny Middlebrough Girl” to her sweetheart, “a York shire Bumkin” from whom she is presently separated, is prefaced, “Since the cowar[d]ly Dutch were so pitifully beaten in the last great Fight, the English there dare not stir out of doors for fear of being murdered in the open streets, by those barbarous and inhuman Schellums,” but the letter is included to edify “all the distressed Damsells of the City of Nod-Noll [i.e., London], who are forced to lye gnawing the sheets” for want of their men.67 The love letter is rendered silly being written as it is in broken English. Another fake letter signed by “Jean de Breg-li-on” details by way of ­hyperbole the monstrous atrocities allegedly committed by French ­soldiers; Crouch’s purpose is to mock what he deemed embellished reportage by straight and, in this case, royalist-leaning newsbooks The French Intelligencer and The Faithful Scout.68 Faithful Scout had reported in its most recent issue, “since the French Kings forces obtained the foresaid Victory [over the Prince of Conde], they have behaved themselves very barbarously, drinking, swearing, and committing all manner of debauchery, and ravishing the Nuns before the High Altars.”69 Bregli-on repeats this in his letter printed in Democritus but the exaggeration is shifted into absurdity: the French Kings Forces having obtained the Victory over the Prince of Conde, here hath been by James Stuart and his Cavaliers nothing but drinking, carrowsing, tipling, swilling, execrating, swearing, blaspheming, and all manner of debauchery whatsoever; there was last week 600. Nunns ravished under the High-Altar in one Abbey by the lecherous Frenchmen, and one upon the very Altar ravished

Epistolary Satire  105 to death; Women were dragged by the hair of their heads through the streets stark naked, four were stab’d through the breasts, one woman taken out of Child-bed and hang’d, while her pains were upon her.70 To drive his criticism home, Crouch has Breg-li-on write: if you can, get this inserted into one of the weekly books, either the French Intelligencer or the Scout, it will do well to make the people know the cruelty and debauchery of those cursed, bloody, and most horrible terrible Tyrants. In concluding his mockery of such tales Crouch reveals that his likewise is all a fabrication—the word “lie” is embedded in the fictional letter writer’s name “Breg-Li-on” in the signature to the letter. Roughly a month before the Restoration, the parodic newsbook The Phanatick Intelligencer offered mockery of Independents generally and Quakers specifically. The letter form was strategically employed in this case since Quakers very often used both handwritten and printed ­letters to develop and organize their ministry.71 The letter in the newsbook is from Quakers in Amsterdam to fellow Quakers in England; they lament that the English Quakers did not achieve a religious settlement or even a share in the new government—that, despite the imminent Restoration, “at least you would make show to the world that the spirit of light which you pretend to be within you, doth suppress that spirit of darkness which reigns in yours and our souls and consciences.”72 The Quakers are therefore made to characterize themselves as hypocrites bent on secular power while appearing to scorn it, and the mimicry of Quaker formulations—“us the children of the true light” (4)—points up their sanctimoniousness. The Amsterdam Quakers nevertheless urge the English Quakers to redouble their endeavors to secure power, “by all means and wayes possible the re-usurping a Government into your hands” (4), ultimately to “do God good service, by advancing the Commonwealth of the Saints” (5). Mercurius Phanaticus, another parodic newsbook, proffered a letter as if from John Hewson to Charles Fleetwood, men who shared an ongoing association.73 Hewson was a colonel under Cromwell, later knighted and appointed to the Lords by the Protector, while Fleetwood was also an MP in the Lords and, like Hewson, a member of the second Committee of Safety.74 Hewson is characterized as having been temporarily insane but has come out of this state to compose the letter: Colonel Hewson Who for private devotion is retyred to his ­Countrey house, being through a deep sence of his causing the poor Cobler to go barefoot to the other World, cast him into a Melancholy trance, as

106  Epistolary Satire soon as he was recovered, and John and Hewson had shooke hands again dispatched the following Letter to the Lord Fleetwood.75 Hewson confesses a regret resulting from “the weight of my disturbed conscience” (12), a regret in which he waxes nostalgic for his days as a cobbler: I have ever had some care like Promotheus[’s] vulture gnawing my heart; O that I could but meet with an expert Chymist that could convert a Colonel into a Cobler, and my honour into honesty; I’le forfeit all the eyes I have. (14–15) The satirist calls attention to an eye that Hewson lost years before, but a specific news event does not seem to have inspired this satire. Hewson refers to a recent occurrence, however: Hewson’s quelling of a riot of apprentices in London the prior December during which a few people were killed and several wounded (which made him very unpopular); in the letter, Hewson feels that he has “contracted the Odium of that great City,” a fact which Samuel Pepys reported on January 25, 1660: “in Cheapside there had been but a little before a Gibbett set up, and the picture of Huson hung upon [it] in the middle of the street.”76 By March 1660, however, when this letter was printed, Hewson was beaten and isolated; he fled to Amsterdam a few months afterward.77

Epistolary Satires of 1660 Satirical letters, such as those of Pluto and Hewson in the parodic newsbooks of 1659 and 1660, saw greater numbers in pamphlet and broadside form on the eve of the Restoration—print letters in which the republican leadership was satirized. A cluster of satirical letters published between January and April 1660 was concerned largely with the second Committee of Safety formed in late October 1659, which was “intrusted with the management of Publick affairs”—an army-sponsored committee comprised mostly of military but also of some political leaders; they ­ ambert, remained empowered until late December of that year.78 John L Arthur Hesilrige, Charles Fleetwood, Henry Vane Jr., John Disbrowe, Archibald Johnston (Lord Wariston), John Hewson, John Ireton, ­Bulstrode Whitelocke, and Robert Tichborne were among its 23 members. The committee, however, was viewed with great suspicion by many. Lucy Hutchinson, for instance, observed that “they there began their ­arbitrary reign, to the joy of all the vanquished enemies of the parliament and to the amazement and terror of all men that had any honest interest,” while Pepys referred to it in February 1660 as “the late tyrannical Committee of Safety.”79

Epistolary Satire  107 Among the principal reasons why epistolary satire may have been used to discredit and mock these individuals was precisely because of the suspicious character of this committee, in particular, of the cabalistic nature of the intrigues and maneuverings by and among these men in trying to wrest control of the country in the months leading up to the Restoration. Furthermore, because authentic letters by some of these men were read in Parliament and subsequently published—such as The Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the ­Parliament (1659 / L237) and A Letter Sent from Col. John Disbrowe, Dated December 29, 1659 … to … the Speaker of the Parliament (1659, Dec. 31T / D1128)—some of the epistolary satires as if composed by these men may be working as mimic satires, since explicit basis for ­parody was possible.80 One such satirical letter, The Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker (1660, Jan. 3T / L3048), like both the genuine letters listed above, is addressed as if to William Lenthall, restored in May 1659 as speaker of the House and who had been halted in his coach by Lambert’s soldiers on October 13, 1659, on his way to Whitehall to preside over Parliament.81 By early January 1660, news had come to Parliament that Lambert, in the north, had submitted following the deterioration of his military forces.82 Lambert can therefore be ventriloquized to write in Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker that “I am willing to conform, for I see there is no good to be done this bout” (4–5) even though he hopes later in the letter “That I may have liberty to carry on another Design, to turn them [MPs] out again when the Lord shall enable me” (6). It is indeed an unhinged, almost schizophrenic temperament that Lambert exhibits in the letter. He asks Lenthall to “pardon past Injuries and Affronts” (4) in recounting the recent history of halting Lenthall’s coach, but also requests that his enemies Arthur Hesilrige and Colonel Herbert Morley be punished. This characterization of Lambert is demonstrated especially in seven mock articles Lambert wishes Parliament to approve. These mock articles reveal Lambert’s opportunism, his vengefulness, and his greed. Lambert concludes, “If these Conditions will not be accepted, I desire you to send me word what they would have me to do; for considering the condition I am in, I am very willing to Treat” (6), even though he had the temerity to propose these articles in the first place. Lambert demonstrates deference in his letter yet at the same time aggression as he ­wavers between ambition and submission. By the end of the letter Lambert has portrayed himself finally as unpredictable, unprincipled, and unbalanced in character. Although Lambert was essentially isolated and defeated by January 3 when the pamphlet appeared, he was still perceived as something of a threat: on January 4, in fact, Pepys records in his diary, “Strange, the difference of men’s talk: some say that Lambert must of necessity yield up; others, that he is very strong, and that the Fifth-­monarchy men will stick to him if he declares for a free Parliament.”83 The unreliable news

108  Epistolary Satire surrounding Lambert seems to have informed the very structure of the pamphlet insofar as the letter contains the rhythm of threat and capitulation; the pamphlet seems to respond acutely to the pulse of rumor, uncertain information, and undetermined fact. The author of this pamphlet also invokes the wider complex of epistolary production in print, a tactic that pulls the letter into an extensive cultural matrix of news, print, and ideology. Lambert is made to write, “I shall with all readiness subscribe my self their [Parliament’s] Humble Servant, as I did in my Letters out of Cheshire” (5). This statement is meant to tie this fictional satirical letter to genuine letters by Lambert from Cheshire published the prior August as Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the Parliament and A Second and a Third Letter from the Lord Lambert, Dated at Chester … the One Directed to the Speaker of the Parliament, the Other to the Lo[rd] ­President of the Council of State (1659 / L242)—two of which were addressed to the speaker of the House and to which he indeed subscribed, “Your most faithful and humble Servant.”84 By this strategy, the author of Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker takes a jab at Lambert’s counterfeit modesty, since Lambert is by turns characterized in the satirical letter as imperious and self-righteous; but perhaps the verisimilitude of the satirical publication was strengthened by tying it to a genuine letter of Lambert. Indeed, the subtlety of the comedy furnishes a plausibility to this fake letter that might have encouraged a reader to mistake it for an authentic one, just as the letters in Letters of Obscure Men were taken by some readers as authentic. Either recognized as satire or judged as genuine, the letter may nonetheless have registered its persuasive points about the nature and character of Lambert. The broadside A Letter to the House from the Laird Wareston, Late President of the Committee of Safety (1660, Feb. 2T / L1737A) is a satire denouncing Archibald Johnston, Lord Wariston. In addition to his presidency of the hated Committee of Safety, Wariston attracted yet more loathing after he was mentioned in a letter of General George Monck written to William Lenthall, read in Parliament, and printed in early January: “my Lord Warreston hath endeavoured to stirr up the people of this Nation [Scotland] as much as hee could against your interest.”85 The satirical letter placed in Wariston’s pen obliquely picks up Monck’s accusation; the fake letter becomes an ironic explanation of and mock confession for his actions to the House, a letter in which Wariston is mimicked to write in Scots dialect, I’se ne crave your pardon at aw, for that I laboured for Advauncement in this woarld, accoarding to the practicks of aw gude men … whareby I’se incurd the Odium of your gude Loardships, whose displesure hath gar’d [i.e., caused] muckle sorrow until [i.e., unto] your pure sarvant, which gares me now to writ thilke lines until

Epistolary Satire  109 your Loardships, that I’se may humble my sel, and greet [i.e., weep] before your Loardships for the sinn whilk Ise ha committed against aw the gude People in England. I doe mack confession unto your Loardships, fra the vary bottom of my heart, that Ise ha ne car’d ene pin foar the Kirk of England, ne foar the Kirk of Scotland nather. Appropriate to a mock confession, Wariston appears to admit his guilt but does not actually do so, so that the confessional feature of the ­letter is perverted or qualified in something of the same fashion as Lord ­L ambert’s Letter to the Speaker: Wariston indicates he is only, in fact, confessing that he did not care about the churches of England and ­Scotland. He continues, “Ise now see my fault, and giff [i.e., if] your Loardships gares me till sit in aw the Stules of Repentance in Scotland, Ise ne be soarry at aw.” Wariston also laments his association with Committee of Safety members Henry Vane Jr. and John Lambert, “those men that seduced me untill syck an errour and misdemeanour against your Loardships.” Both within the letter and at the end, where the date should be inscribed, Wariston makes it clear that he does not wish to be found: “My Loards, Ise ne date my Letter, for that Ise ne care at aw that / your Loardships should ken whare I am”—as dating typically included the ­locale from which a letter was sent. By mid-January ­Wariston had indeed gone into hiding as he feared arrest.86 In a way, Letter to the House from the Laird Wareston resembles John Hewson’s letter to Charles Fleetwood in Mercurius Phanaticus in that regret and conscience have brought both men to this pass; but whereas Hewson’s regret and conscience are made to appear genuine, Wariston’s are not. Intriguingly, the regrets that Wariston is made to reveal in this self-mocking fictional letter are strikingly similar to genuine self-­ recriminations Wariston recorded in his diary. For instance, Wariston writes on December 30, 1659, I acknowledged my ph[antasy] and ambition and avarice and pryde and vaynglory had brought me often to ruyne, and that I never devysed or prosecuted anything for my awen end but God blast it and ruyned me almost by it …. Al my destructions and danger hes ever been of myself and from myself.87 Furthermore, Wariston himself saw this satirical letter, as he writes in his diary on February 1, 1660: his wife “sent me a prented letter written in my nayme to the House reproching, revyling and jeering and mocking me vyldly.”88 Wariston’s acknowledgment of the satirical letter allows one an unusual opportunity to gauge a victim’s response to a specific epistolary satire. The following day, he reflected again on the letter: “I begoud to think on the feigned letter as written be me [to] the House but vyldly revyling me … yet my enemyes reproach my nayme mor for my

110  Epistolary Satire deutyes nor my sins.”89 The satire, at least as far as it was interpreted by Wariston, is misguided. He is culpable of transgressions, as the letter makes clear and as Wariston acknowledges, but the satire was assailing what Wariston felt he had to do as his duty. Considering how Wariston responded to this epistolary satire, one cannot say that the satire had reformed Wariston. Indeed, as I have been arguing, reform, transforming vice to virtue, was not the intent of these satires. A Letter from Sir Henry Vane to Sir Arthur Hasilrig Dated 23 ­February 1659 (1660, Feb. 27 T / V71) responds indirectly to Henry Vane Jr.’s expulsion from Parliament on January 9, 1660, and directly to Parliament’s order of February 13 that Vane retire to his house in Belleau en route to Raby (the letter is dated as if sent from Belleau in Lincolnshire).90 Vane and Hesilrige were both allies and adversaries during their long association, but after Vane was expelled by the Rump “Hesilrige was so much opposed to Vane’s expulsion,” biographer V ­ iolet Rowe writes, “that he wept when he saw he could not prevent it” and ­attempted to have Vane readmitted.91 Yet by February 11, Hesilrige himself was losing power. As Pepys reports on this date, I saw the Speaker [Lenthall] reading of the letter [from George Monck]; and after it was read, Sir A. Haslerig came out very angry; and [Edward] Billing standing at the door, took him by the arm and cried, ‘Thou man, will thy beast carry thee no longer? thou must fall!’.92 Although by February 27 Vane and Hesilrige were largely beaten, Vane was still seen “as a man who might yet return to power.”93 Vane is made to claim in his letter that “I may return to the discharge of my Trust [as a member of Parliament] … upon the Account of a secluded Member” (2–3), even though he was not among the secluded members recently invited by Monck (on February 21) to return to the Long Parliament.94 Like the title of Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker, the title of Letter from Sir Henry Vane to Sir Arthur Hasilrig is straightforward, which creates an aura of authenticity; moreover, there is a tension between the likelihood and the impossibility of the letter writers returning to power in both publications—a tension informed both by the uncertainty of the news and by the instability of the government. Vane begins his letter, “If you are diseased in your minde (as thanks to the Devil I am at the writing hereof) I am very glad” (1). Besides exhibiting the imbalanced state of mind of the two men, the sentence picks up the recurring association of sectaries with the satanic, which is especially pointed in light of Vane’s religious views, for he was associated with the Fifth Monarchists and shared many of their tenets.95 Vane indeed writes of his independent religious propensities by asking Hesilrige to send “down Dr. [Peter] Chamberlain … from his Synagogue” (1)

Epistolary Satire  111 to aid him, while Vane’s acknowledgment of Fifth Monarchist Praisegod Barbon near the end of the letter also picks up this line of association.96 Vane also vows to take vengeance on Hesilrige: “for on my seared conscience you know not whither to run, or where to hide your impudent head” (3). This passage alludes to 1 Timothy 4:1–2: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” Vane damns his own religious beliefs as demonic and duplicitous in the process of condemning Hesilrige. Vane also blames Hesilrige for the dissolution of the fanatic cohort through Hesilrige’s “haire-brain’d impudence” (2)—Hesilrige, in fact, had Lambert cashiered and expelled from Parliament—and Vane in his letter wishes to sit in Parliament again if only to “promote a Vote to send you farther than Raby, even to Jamaica” (3).97 Vane claims that the citizens “would turn Taile to you, and tell you that you are a Rumper, and highly entertain and caresse your Worship with Turnip-tops” (3–4). This jab is also based on current events: as Pepys writes on February 19, “Haslerigg was afraid to have the candle carried before him, for fear that the people seeing him should do him hurt. And that he is afeared to appear in the City.”98 Royalist reports of late January indicated that Vane, Hesilrige, and Lambert had met to “join interests” and to “raise all the sectaries they can.”99 Vane can therefore write that “we must be fellows in Miserie, as well as we have been in Mischief; put in Lambert—and three merry Boyes we are, though questionlesse there are more of us in the same pickle” (4)—a statement that leads Vane into his epistolary acknowledgments: “Pray remember my best Respects to my Lord Whitlock: You may, if you please, acquaint Alderman [Robert] Tichborne, Ireton, and Praise-God Barebone with this. I think Fleetwood and Disbrow not worth remembring; but do what you thinke fit” (4–5). These acknowledgments code association, of course, and tie others (reliably or not) to the persons being condemned in the pamphlet; the reference to the last two, Fleetwood and Disbrowe, is not simply a perversion of the “remember me to …” formula, but also comically implies that these men now have no significance as political forces. The title page of A Packet of Severall Letters Being Intercepted and Taken on Thursday Night Last Being the 26 of Aprill, Which Were Sent from John Lambert, Esq., to Many of the Phanaticks in the Country (1660, Apr. 27 T / P159) indicates that all the letters were composed by Lambert, but of the four letters included only one is by Lambert (addressed to Henry Vane Jr.), while the others are from Vane to an unnamed lord, Hewson to Fleetwood, and Valentine Walton to ­Hesilrige. While Lambert himself had been arrested by Parliament and placed in the Tower on March 4, he escaped on April 10 but was recaptured on April 22; he was brought back to London on April 24, the

112  Epistolary Satire day Pepys reported the news, roughly three days before this pamphlet appeared.100 As the title of the pamphlet indicates, this packet was supposedly intercepted on April 26, after Lambert had been recaptured. The letters therein depict these individuals as beaten at the same time as they reflect the correspondents’ desires to continue their activities: the imagined cabalistic intrigues of former members of the second Committee of Safety (except for Walton) are highlighted in the reference to intercepted letters in the title, which suggests surreptitious circulation requiring ­discovery—“Papers exposited now to publick view” (1)—to demonstrate sectary scheming. This publication is also intriguing for its preface to the letters, a framework within which to understand the following letters—the ­Sectary personified: The Phrantick Sectary being now stark mad, and in a high Feavour; the effect of his old surfet of blood, and Treasure is strugling and gasping for life: And these Papers exposited now to publick view, present you with all the Art and skill imaginable. His best Physicians, Vane, Hasilrigge, Whitlock, Lambert, &c. hard tryed to preserve him; The Patient talkes idlely and mischievously, but the Docters speak senciously and devillishly. (1) The pervasive association of the fanatics with the satanic is also manifested in the first letter. Vane writes to an unnamed lord of “try[ing] if we can [to] court the Devil with Anabaptisticall holy water, avowedly to side with us, and finish the work we begun in the name of J----” (1); and later in the letter that, “At my last converse with my Familiar, I demanded of him concerning my Brother Lambert, and I import it to you as an infernall secret, he will certainly escape out of the Tower before this comes to your hands” (2). Emphasis is, first of all, given to Vane’s irreligious beliefs. Associating the satanic expressly with Vane has special meaning (apart from the general evocation of evil); it is also a condemnation of Vane’s ties to the Fifth Monarchists, of “Vane’s wayward eclecticism” when it came to religion.101 The reference to another escape may have also produced anxiety: Lambert’s initial imprisonment was the result of Monck’s concern that Lambert was still a grave threat, and Monck took his escape very seriously.102 The escape indeed prompted some alarm as the Restoration approached: “As the news of his escape spread and received fictitious accretions a mild panic ensued and a hue and cry after him was raised,” as one biographer of Lambert writes.103 Pepys records nine days after Lambert’s escape “that the Phanatiques have held up their heads high since Lambert got out of the Tower,” but once he was recaptured that “their [the fanatics’] whole design is broke and things now very open and safe—and every man begins to be merry

Epistolary Satire  113 and full of hopes.”104 This author of this pamphlet insinuates that although Lambert had been recaptured, these men may still be a potential threat; Vane’s letter, despite its exaggerated satanic reference, was not exactly encouraging a reader to be “merry and full of hopes.” Lambert’s letter to Vane follows, and in it Lambert is made to assert that the miscarriage of the letters of their cabal has caused considerable difficulty. After mourning that the crown had slipped out of his hands (inadvertently praising Charles in the process), Lambert refers to a ­massive slaughter as a future possibility: what think you of the Parisian [i.e., the Bartholomew’s Day] ­Massacre? this I do but hint unto you, but I’le assure you what ever you can do for your selves, shall be powerfully seconded and assisted by your faithfull friend. (3–4) In both this and Vane’s letter, the correspondents are most defiant about resurrecting the Good Old Cause—but by absurdly satanic or ludicrously violent means. The following letter from Hewson to Fleetwood registers a somewhat ambiguous tone, as Hewson in having returned to cobbling has learned while plying his trade among his customers that they are eager for the return of the king, though Hewson nevertheless seeks encouragement from Fleetwood to continue the fight. The final letter resumes a somewhat more aggressive attitude, with Valentine Walton, active after April 1659 as an MP and member of the Council of State, writing to Hesilrige; Walton is reduced to begging Hesilrige for money to pay the debts incurred by Oliver Cromwell’s funeral (Walton had married Margaret Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell’s sister). Walton recognizes the desperation of their cause, yet vows, “as beggarly already as [our friends] were at the beginning, let us now move Heaven and Earth rather the[n] sink under the load of our Dunghill fortunes” (5). Although a direct result of the news of Lambert’s recapture, the pamphlet does not otherwise respond to much current news in the individual letters contained therein. Rather, the letters were constructed to expose the fundamental nature of the men, ridiculing them—accurately or not—in reference to their distinctive features (Hewson’s loss of an eye, Vane’s religious idiosyncrasies, Lambert’s mania) with the aim of mocking into defeat an enemy that may still be a threat.

Epistolary Satire, 1678–83 The years of the Popish Plot, the Meal Tub Plot, and the Rye House Plot together saw a very large group of satirical letters, published in especially large numbers after the lapse of the Licensing Act in May 1679. A

114  Epistolary Satire Letter from a Catholick Gentleman to His Popish Friends Now to Be Exil’d from London, Dated Nov. 6, 1678 (1678 / R6) was constructed to follow hot on the heels of the discovery of the Popish Plot (the Commons had resolved on October 31 that the Popish Plot was fact); in particular the pamphlet responds to Charles II’s October 30 proclamation “Commanding all Persons being Popish Recusants, or so reputed, to depart from the Cities of London and Westminster, and all other Places within Ten miles of the same.”105 “Methinks here’s a strange disappointment!” the letter writer (designated as B. R.) begins. “This is at least the Two Hundredth Religious PLOT we have contriv’d against the Hereticks … and yet to miscarry thus at last” (3). Despite the fact that the recipients of the letter are to be exiled from London, the Catholic gentleman nevertheless encourages his friends to continue to be deceptive: “How shall the dull Hereticks (without Infallible Spectacles, and those His Holiness reserves for his own Nose) know a Romanist?” (4). B. R. also urges his friends to obey religious authority above the king’s authority through equivocation: if it be for the interest of the Catholick Cause, or your own Conveniencies, you may safely take the Oath of Supremacy. The King is Higher than the highest; but (I hope you mentally think) there are (even on Earth), higher than he. (6) The self-condemnation characteristic of these sorts of satirical letters is worked out to its ludicrously logical conclusions, in one instance, in the letter writer’s observation that They [Protestants] rail at us impertinently for Cruelty; for if we have, or shall … Kill Thousands of Hereticks, ‘tis all in Love … Love to their Souls, that their Sufferings in the other world may be the less, by how much the time of their sinning in this, is the shorter. And who will not rather applaud, than blame such pure Catholick Charity? (7) The reductio ad absurdum is also comic because any murder of thousands is unlikely considering that such a plot would be yet another scheme to come to naught. The letter is also constructed as if written the day after the Gunpowder Treason Day celebrations when “our Holy ­Father’s Dignity [was] so vilified and exposed in the Streets, on that cursed, unfortunate Fifth of November” (7–8) when the pope was burned in effigy—further reminder of the failure of yet another plot, the Gunpowder Plot. Even though at the end of the letter B. R. urges his recipients to be patient and await further instructions, any future plots, according to the comic logic of the pamphlet, are doomed to fail.

Epistolary Satire  115 The Popes Letter to Maddam Cellier (1680 / P2935) and Maddam Celliers Answer to the Popes Letter (1680 / M242B) constitute a pair of epistolary satires in which both Elizabeth Cellier and Pope Innocent XI are ventriloquized; they were printed sometime after October 6 (the date given the second letter) after Cellier was punished by pillory and imprisoned for libel.106 The pamphlets together comprise a concerted publication effort, both produced by the same printer. The pope begins the exchange in Popes Letter to Maddam Cellier by stating that he had “Received an Account [of your sufferings] from the Provincial of the Jesuites” (1), while Cellier responds in Maddam Celliers Answer, “that you lately heard from the Provincial of my mighty sufferings” (2) to demonstrate that, although each stands alone, the pamphlets are to be read and understood in tandem; together they demonstrate secret ­Catholic correspondence that is here not so much threatening as risible. The lampoon in both pamphlets tends to broad anti-Catholic satire of papist scheming, clerical worldliness, and papal greed, though not without explicit aim at Cellier’s gender and insinuations of her prurience. Indeed, in her return letter, she writes that she “kissed it [your letter] at least a thousand times e’re she could read it out” (1). Here a distinctive epistolary practice was reworked: because handwritten letters acted as transmissive mechanisms, as bearers of emotion, they served as material substitutes for the absent individual in many different sorts of social relationship. So Elizabeth Hervey, Lady Bristol, writes to her husband, “I car[ri]ed your letter to bed with me, and waked this morning at 6 a clock … and read & kisd it over & over a hundred times”; and John Jewel writes to fellow cleric John Parkhurst of “How much pleasure I got from it [your letter], how lovingly I hugged and kissed it.”107 But since Cellier’s sexuality had been so exaggerated in the various media accounts of her various activities, her reference to kissing the pope’s letter is transformed into something far more salacious; indeed, throughout the course of her letter Cellier characterizes herself as bawdy and promiscuous. As in other satirical letters such as Letter to the House from the Laird Wareston where the style or dialect of a particular letter writer is mimicked, in Maddam Celliers Answer the vulgar fashion in which Cellier writes and the coarse sentiments she expresses are intended to demonstrate something of her character. Cellier states, for instance, if ever I come to Rome [I] will present your Holiness with such a Mess of strengthning Jelly, as shall make Prickaro mount his head aloft, and then to lay it, will procure you one of the Bucksomest Lasses that your City can afford … or if it better like your Holiness to sail in a well seasoned Frigot (bona fide) you shall have my weather-beaten-Skiff, that be sure will hold against both Wind and Tide. (2)

116  Epistolary Satire Cellier’s letter is dated as sent from Newgate. The letter was therefore also constructed to take part in the subgenre of the prison letter. ­Handwritten letters once received overcame the physical barriers of prison walls, and once printed became cogent, persuasive illustrations of suffering.108 Straightforward prison letters such as those in Miles Coverdale’s collection Certain Most Godly, Fruitful, and Comfortable Letters of … True Saintes and Holy Martyrs (1564 / 5886) were meant, among other things, to generate sympathy for the imprisoned. This is obviously not the satirist’s intention in creating Cellier’s letter: one is encouraged to laugh at Cellier not pity her for her sufferings. As Cellier explains to the pope, I dread to tell you all the deal of misery, lest it should turn you and your Conclave into Lachrime, and make you weep your Eyes out, at which I know the Hereticks would laugh and snicker till they bepiss themselves. (2) Cellier goes on to recount her trial and punishment but in a comical fashion, describing her ruses to avoid punishment and her mock-heroic episodes once in the pillory, so that the letter of this prisoner is anything but the “lamentable Story” (4) Cellier claims it is. Accent on the material, transmissive, and symbolic dimensions of letters implies Cellier’s engagement with textuality generally. As Frances Dolan puts it, “Both court cases against Cellier [for treason and libel] revolve around texts: correspondence smuggled into and out of Newgate, lists and schemes hidden in meal tubs, libelous publications, witnesses’ examinations.”109 Cellier’s letter is framed as surreptitious correspondence, since the pope’s initial letter, “which in spite of all the raging Hereticks Devices to Intrap, came safe unto the hands of your obedient Daughter” (1). Cellier indeed writes back to the pope that “I had no sooner fixed my Eyes upon it [your letter], but my Plotting ­genius uneclips’d, and double Vigor spread through every part” (1). Furtive letters stimulate Cellier’s impulse to scheme. Authors of other fake letters imagined the Elizabeth Cellier–Pope Innocent XI correspondence network as well: in A Letter from His Holiness the Pope to the Most Illustrious Protestant Prince, James Duke of Monmouth (1682 / L1473) Innocent writes of having been “credibly inform’d [by] … our undaunted Midwife” (recto). Cellier was envisaged to be profoundly enmeshed in Catholic plotting through ongoing subversive letter writing. When MP Robert Peyton was examined in the Commons in December 1680 for holding correspondence with Cellier, he responded that his reason was “That Cellier was a good bawd, and, may be, could procure.”110 Cellier’s imagined activities as a procuress, based principally on her gender alone, tie Cellier and well-known London bawd Elizabeth Cresswell

Epistolary Satire  117 together in A Letter from the Lady Creswell to Madam C., the Midwife, on the Publishing Her Late Vindication (1680 / L1529).111 It was certainly not shared political or religious perspectives that united them: while Cellier was a Catholic, Cresswell embraced hardline anti-Catholic Whig politics—Cresswell was a supporter of radical Whig politician Thomas Player and promoted the Popish Plot.112 This fact makes the “partisan orientation [of the pamphlet] somewhat difficult to grasp,” as Melissa Mowry puts it.113 However, together Cellier and Cresswell may be characterized as outspoken women—who by that characteristic may therefore be portrayed as licentious. The letter is dated September 1680, and the reason for the letter, Cresswell is made to write, was her reading of Cellier’s Malice Defeated (1680 / C1661), printed in late August. Cresswell goes onto chastise Cellier for her impudence, her engagement with politics, her wish for fame—her desire “to be esteemed one of the Eldest Daughters of the Whore of Babylon” (2), as Cresswell writes. The association between Cellier and harlotry is indeed reiterated again and again in the pamphlet; although Cresswell repeatedly mentions the “honourable Calling” (2) of Cellier’s occupation, the calling is never named (except in the title of the pamphlet by way of epithet). The implication seems to be that Cellier’s honorable calling is rather the oldest profession, as Cresswell asks: “You have an honest Calling, and though I say it, a very ancient one, and was of great esteem in all Ages of the World; I admire who bewitched you to this Trade of Sham-plotting?” (2). In short, Cresswell is suggesting that Cellier prostituted herself—sexually and as a vehicle for others to plot through; moreover, Cellier has exposed herself—by shamelessly engaging politics and desiring fame. Cresswell is constructed in way contrary to widespread perceptions of her: as disengaged from the public sphere. She writes, “I am resolved on, never to concern my self with State Matters” (2), yet she was deeply involved in London politics.114 Any reader familiar with current social and political events would have recognized her statement as a falsehood. Cresswell also characterizes herself as self-serving and unprincipled. She writes, “though for my part ‘tis all one to me what Religion goes up, I am old, and hope to live and die honestly in my Calling” (2) when her support of extremist Whig politicians and the Popish Plot was well known. Although Cresswell was also a public figure—and so subject to the very criticisms she is leveling at Cellier—Cresswell is not the chief target of the satire. The last half of the pamphlet, “A Whip for Impudence; or, A Lashing Repartee to the Snarling Midwifes Matchless Rogue” offers a straightforward attack on Cellier alone, and some of the same language and comparisons that Cresswell verbalizes in her fictional letter to Cellier are repeated here. What Cresswell relays throughout her letter in the first part of the pamphlet is reiterated as a straightforward attack in the second part; the pamphlet therefore resembles others whose message is

118  Epistolary Satire repeated in a straightforward fashion after it is given in the form of a satirical letter. In the broadsheet A True Copy of a Letter of Consolation Sent to Nat. the Printer … from the Meal-Tub Midwife (1681 / T2618), Cellier is made to comfort printer Nathaniel Thompson, a publisher of principally Catholic books and of the Tory newspaper The Domestick Intelligence (later The Loyal Protestant and True Domestick Intelligence).115 The broadsheet was inspired by two very specific recent events, although Cellier is also ventriloquized to refer to events of older date. Cellier begins, I have with great Sorrow heard the News of Thy Bumbasting, by our Heretical Enemies; But now under Thy own Hand, and Composing, I have Read, That they did not Beat thee enough —————— to send Thee to our Holy Father for a Consecrated Martyr and Saint. (recto) A news report of November 19, 1681, relates, “in the forenoon, Mr.  ­Charleton [son of Shropshire Whig MP Francis Charlton], seeing Thompson, the printer, in Fleet Street, caned him so smartly [as] has made him cry out of it in this day’s Intelligence.”116 Thompson indeed complained about the beating in his own newspaper.117 The other specific event that is taken up in True Copy of a Letter of Consolation is the pope-burning procession that occurred on November 17, one of three that occurred annually in 1679, 1680, and 1681 in the midst of the Popish Plot hysteria.118 Cellier refers in her letter to Thompson’s commentary in the November 19 issue of Loyal Protestant on the event: in thy last Relation of the Hereticks making a Bon-Fire of our most Dear Father the Pope, Thou hast altogether left out the true Story of the Popish Printer Riding with his Face to the Horses Tail, all to beset, and bedeckt with Lying Intelligences, least the people should have taken it to have been Thine own Picture. (recto) An account of the 1681 pope-burning procession describes “a certain Typographer [which represented Thompson], with his Holiness CrossKeys at his Girdle, and a bundle of Popish Catechisms under his right Arm, making a thousand wry faces at the sight of a Pillory.”119 By the end of the letter, Cellier asks to be remembered to “our Fellow-Sufferers, Madam Joana [Brome], alias Monsieur Observator [a newssheet written by Roger L’Estrange]; together with the Most Oblieging, Seigneur Heraclitus Ridens [written by Edward Rawlins]” (recto). Joanna Brome, wife of printer Henry Brome, printed L’Estrange’s Observator, while Heraclitus Ridens, like the Observator, was a Tory periodical. Cellier, then, effectively lumps them together to suggest they all have Catholic

Epistolary Satire  119 sympathies. Cellier also condemns herself: “I Commend thy Industry in our publick Calling [of Lying],” she writes, the brackets appearing in the text; and tells Thompson my Stone Jacquet, if the Keeper would have Lent it Thee, had been freely at Thy Service, however my Head-Piece, (that kept off the Stone of twenty pound weight at my Exaltation) is wholly at Thy Command, least next time Thou peepest out of White fryers, some Bold Protestant Heritick should Ring the second Part to the same Tune on Thy empty Noddle. (recto) In this reference to her own time in the pillory, Cellier writes of her punishment in same fashion as in Maddam Celliers Answer to the Popes Letter, inviting not sympathy but ridicule. Satirical letters were also written in Thompson’s name. The Whig broadsheet A Letter Intercepted from the Popish-Printer in Fetter-Lane to His Friend Heraclitus (1681 / L1560) has Thompson write to ­Edward Rawlins, who wrote the Tory newspaper Heraclitus Ridens—the letter is signed “TONIE TOMP--N” (verso). The pamphlet is probably from late November though Thompson refers to a host of past and recent events including Stephen College’s July 8 Middlesex treason trial, Thompson’s own August 31 indictment at the Old Bailey for libel, and the November 17 pope-burning procession.120 The core of this letter, however, consists of Thompson’s lamentations for the failure of Tory propaganda efforts and the Catholic cause, including recognition that his own transgressions will be punished, “that sometimes I am feeling in my Pocket for a piece of Silver to give [Jack] Ketch [the executioner] at the dead lift” (verso). Some of the references the author of the broadsheet puts in Thompson’s pen are exceedingly oblique, profoundly entrenched as they were in newspaper controversy. Take the third paragraph, for instance, where Thompson writes, And the misfortune is, that we are like to lose our poor Friend ­W hip-Cat, for since the good Wives Pusses have forsaken his House, a new Plague is come to him; the Rats and Mice have gathered on him in such Legions, that they have devour’d the whole Stock of Parmisant he bought in Holland: so that ‘tis fear’d he must take another Voyage to new store himself; or put Madam Joanna to the charge of getting him a Pot of Extreme-Unction, as she did for Capricorn. (recto) This passage would have been virtually inscrutable to any reader who did not possess knowledge of newspaper controversy, current events, and the recent past. “Whip-Cat” is Roger L’Estrange. The appellation

120  Epistolary Satire developed this way: in his Observator L’Estrange composed a story that Tory tells to Whig: To[ry]. I had a Volary to the House that I now live in; and my Neighbours Cats would make bold now and then with Two or Three Birds in a Night. Upon this, I clear’d my self with a Badger-Trap, of Four or Five Dangerous Pusses; and my Neighbours, still as any of their Cats were upon the Ramble, would lay the Death of ‘em to my Charge. I told them that if any of my Birds should make an Inrode upon their Cats, they might serve them with the same Sawce: But we came in fine, to this Point, at last, that if they would but Grub the Noses of their Cats upon the Wire of the Cage; and lash them soundly at the same time, they would give over the haunt. You cannot Imagine, Whig what Rapping there was at my door for Four or Five days after. And what was the Bus’ness, but the bringing of all their Cats to be Whipt. Pray Mistress will ye whip my Cat? (says one to my Maid) and Pray will ye Whip mine says ‘tother: So that in the Conclusion, the Hankering went presently over. Wh[ig.] Well! And what’s your Application now? To. Only this. Do but put the Laws in Execution, and you shall see what Flocking there will be (presently) to desire the very thing they made so great a Scruple of before …. 121 Henry Care takes up this story in a dialogue between Tory and Trueman in the Whig newspaper Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome to mock L’Estrange: Tory. —But prithee what’s the News? Truem. I know none, unless it be of the New Office. Tory. What the Ensurance from Fire?… Truem. No, no, I meant the Cat-Disciplining Office, lately Erected in Holborn [where L’Estrange lived]. Tory. O, Sir! He’s an experienc’d Gentleman that way; Did you never hear how he went a Catter-wauling to the Printers Wife ­[ Joanna Brome]? Besides, there’s an Old Lady [probably Elizabeth Cellier] can vouch for him, that he has been a notable Puss-flogger in his time. No wonder then, if all the goods Wives of St. Gileses rap so often at his door, and cry—Pray Whip my Cat too. Some say, he’s making an Interest at Court to get another Patent (besides that most Legal one for Printing all things under three Sheets) to be ­Cat-Scourger General to the Nation.122 L’Estrange indeed had a monopoly on printed ephemera of anything not exceeding two sheets from his patent of August 15, 1663; his house was visited by the bubonic plague in the 1660s; and he was at The Hague

Epistolary Satire  121 in early 1681, having fled England to evade accusations of papism.123 These facts, along with the initial tale L’Estrange used in Observator to make a political point, were twisted in Weekly Pacquet of Advice to play on L’Estrange’s reputation as a rake and his supposed romantic relationship with Joanna Brome—all of which was picked up in that single paragraph in Letter Intercepted from the Popish-Printer.124 Thompson, as the putative writer of Letter Intercepted from the Popish-Printer, also refers to himself as “Capricorn”: it was reported in the Whig newssheet Protestant Observator that Thompson had been given the nickname “Bell-weather of the Tories.”125 This is picked up in the next issue: “Prithee who Christened Thompson by the Name of Bell-weather? some think he is more a Ram than a guelded Sheep.”126 Joanna Brome, then, in “getting him [L’Estrange] a Pot of Extreme-Unction, as she did for Capricorn” refers to how Joanna Brome would soothe L’Estrange in the same fashion as she is imagined to have salved Thompson after his beating on November 17 in a facetious play on the Catholic last rites. The allusiveness of reference in this broadsheet demonstrates again how deeply many satirical letters depended on partisan controversy and the circulation of news, which may be used to make the case that detailed knowledge of the recent past, current events, and newspaper controversy was indeed required to understand the satire and make sense of the ideological points.127 Considering that Letter Intercepted from the Popish-Printer relies heavily on content from Weekly Pacquet of Advice, external evidence suggests that Henry Care authored this broadsheet. As I indicated, L’Estrange had fled England to Scotland in October 1680 and then traveled to Holland, not returning to England until ­February 1681. Bearing the date of January 10, 1681, the epistle comprising A Letter Out of Scotland from Mr. R. L. S. to His Friend H. B. in London (1681 / L1269) was printed in L’Estrange’s absence in order to ridicule him, a letter that ties L’Estrange and his printer Henry Brome (“H. B.”) together. L’Estrange is made to refer three separate times to the November 17, 1680, pope-burning procession in which he was portrayed as Towser with a broom—that is, Brome—tied to his tail.128 As L’Estrange writes in the letter, “What Rogues were these, to tye my dear Friend to my Arse”? (1). The range of reference in the letter, however, is principally textual—fitting for a journalist like L’Estrange. L’Estrange, in hiding, finds himself afraid to write: “I have been so terrified with the inveterate hatred of these Blew-Caps [i.e., Presbyterians] against Scriblers, that I am fain to make them believe I never wrote in my life” (3); L’Estrange is nevertheless planning to write “a New History of the Popish-Presbyterian-PLOT” (3)—a knock at L’Estrange’s authentic History of the [Popish] Plot (1680 / L1259). L’Estrange also gives voice to the cultural narrative of his crypto-Catholicism: “I am not here known to be R[oger],” L’Estrange writes. “[T]hey would take me then for a Papist in Masquerade” (2). L’Estrange writes toward the conclusion of his

122  Epistolary Satire letter, “If you please, you may print this Letter, which I wrote by stealth, for if my Name be set to it, you know it will sell, what ever stuff is in it” (4), a statement that suggests L’Estrange published solely for profit. The satire ends with L’Estrange’s request for a response under his assumed name: “Let me hear from you as soon as you can, and direct your Letter for Mr. Crack-fart, Lodging at Old Sawny’s” (4), a cognomen L’Estrange had picked up in England. An epistolary satire was indeed concocted as if in response to this letter. It is A True Copy of a Letter (Intercepted) Going for Holland, Directed Thus for His (and His Wives) Never Failing Friend Roger Le Strange at the Oranges Court (1681, Feb. 10 / B80), Brome’s putative response (it is signed “yours H. B.” [2]), though it was printed by a different printer than Letter Out of Scotland from Mr. R. L. S. The bulk of the letter is anti-Catholic invective in the semblance of news about various Catholics, and Brome is ventriloquized to nod at the ineffectuality of papist propaganda: “for faith Roger, all we can Write or Print is but wast Paper, it will not take now adays” (1). L’Estrange had moved on from Scotland to Holland, and near the beginning of the letter Brome writes “yours from Scotland never came to my hand till Printed, through the unhappy mistake of the Messenger” (1) as if the “original” was never personally received by Brome; but the reference is meant to recall (ironically) L’Estrange’s wish that his letter be printed—except that Brome did not have a chance to profit from its publication. Brome’s letter implies manuscript origins in that it is marked as intercepted; this designation, however, is meant as comical since the pamphlet bears the imprint “Printed for H. B.”—obviously a false imprint as Brome would not have printed his own intercepted letter. The letter is therefore framed as a self-mocking letter of self-exposure. The two pamphlets together constitute a sort of collaborative epistolary satire, though (unlike those collaborative fictions in Chapter 1) they maintain the same ideological stance. Stephen College, the “Protestant Joiner,” appears to be the author of True Copy of a Letter (Intercepted), and it was printed by Langley Curtis or his wife.129 As a vocal opponent of both a “popish” Anglican church and Charles’s authoritarian rule, College would have had reason to condemn L’Estrange, apologist for the king, and Brome, his dedicated printer. College himself was ventriloquized by his Tory enemies in A Letter Written from the Tower by Mr. Stephen Colledge (the Protestant-Joyner) to Dick Janeways Wife (1681 / L1763C).130 Framed as a love letter—“Dear Jane, / My Commitment was the more surprizing to me, in that it broke those measures we had taken for a Rendezvous that Evening,” College is ventriloquized to write (recto)—this broadsheet alleges an affair between College and printer Richard Janeway’s wife in a satirical jab at both ­College and Richard Janeway whose Whig newspaper The Impartial Protestant Mercury disputed with Tory periodicals. The letter

Epistolary Satire  123 is supposed to have been written by College after his July 8 Middlesex trial but before his August 17 Oxford trial, and College betrays a fear that the outcome of the Oxford trial will not be as favorable. The associative features of the letter are foremost. In the letter, College defines both his enemies (Thompson, L’Estrange, Joanna Brome) and his allies (Richard Janeway, Slingsby Bethel, Algernon Sidney) referring to them sometimes in disguised or allusive form. College and Richard Janeway were specifically tied together in Tory newspaper accounts, for instance, in L’Estrange’s Observator where Tory sends up the ignoramus verdict of College’s first Middlesex treason trial: “But Pre’thee to the Business of Mr. College. They say the Jury … have Entertain’d [Thomas] Vile, [Henry] Care, Janeway, [Langley] Curtis, and [Richard] Baldwin for their Council”—each a Whig propagandist or printer.131 Observator indeed attacked Richard Janeway’s defense of College in Janeway’s Impartial Protestant Mercury, calling Janeway at various times “Dick Gimcrack” (Issue 55), “Epicoene Janeway” (Issue 37); and, sarcastically, “Infallible Dick” (Issue 37), “Honest Dick” (Issue 41), and “Protestant Dick” (Issue 47). The imprint “LONDON: Printed for R. J. 1681” (verso) on Letter Written from the Tower by Mr. Stephen Colledge is a false one: it was most likely printed by Nathaniel Thompson, as it matches the form Thompson used on his single sheets, but is as if printed for Richard Janeway himself (“R. J.”) to further the implication of cuckoldry—in effect a self-libeling as in True Copy of a Letter (Intercepted) … for … Roger Le Strange. Suggesting that College was sleeping with Janeway’s wife is also a counterattack to the continual allegations that L’Estrange was sleeping with printer Henry Brome’s wife Joanna. Harold Weber concludes that this sheet “ridicule[s] two important Whigs, demonstrating the sexual hypocrisy of the one and the sexual humiliation of the other.”132 In his letter to Janeway’s wife, College refers to “shatter-brain’d Whitaker” (verso). This is attorney Edward Whitaker, retained by George ­Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, for College’s Oxford treason trial. A Letter from Mr. Edward Whitaker to the Protestant Joyner upon His Bill Being Sent to Oxford (1681 / W1704) was composed, again, between College’s Middlesex and Oxford trials. In the letter Whitaker is made to offer comic legal advice to College but expresses a keen sense of doubt of the trial’s outcome despite gestures of encouragement. Indeed, Whitaker conveys how much Whig efforts depend on the outcome of College’s trial: “upon your Case hangs all our Cases, and if you hang, it’s much to be fear’d we shall few of us escape better” (1–2). Among the last lines, Whitaker writes, “if they [writers of Whig newspapers and pamphlets] do not keep up their Reputation there [in Oxford], the Cause will never be retriev’d” (2), which implies that much, if not all, of Whig attempts to restore the Good Old Cause is energized only (and desperately) by print propagandizing. This sheet was, unsurprisingly, printed by Nathaniel Thompson, and it demonstrates yet again how satirical

124  Epistolary Satire letters and newspaper publication intertwined. This material also illustrates Weber’s observation “that in London, at least, the reading public knew a good deal about the personalities involved in the print industry and that the most notorious figures were not writers but printers, publishers, and booksellers.”133 This is indeed true of the epistolary satires I am examining since the authors of many of them are unknown—and may only occasionally be determined after the fact. A Letter from Paris from Sir George Wakeman to His Friend Sir W. S. in London (1681 / L1495B), a broadsheet, is dated “Paris, Feb. 25. New Stile” (verso), as if written and sent in the midst of the parliamentary impeachment of Chief Justice William Scroggs (the W. S. of the title) for treason in early 1681, well after the July 18, 1679, trial of George Wakeman, physician to the queen, over whose treason trial for plotting to poison the king Scroggs presided and which resulted in an acquittal—the first acquittal of any defendant accused of involvement in the Popish Plot. Scroggs’s demeanor was clearly different at the previous Popish Plot trial of Edward Colman than it was at Wakeman’s trial, as Narcissus Luttrell observes: “compare but what his lordship [Scroggs] was pleas’d to say then with what he did say Colman’s trial, and you will find white and black not more different.”134 Hence, Scroggs was accused by Whigs of having accepted a bribe (some charged from Catholics) to assure Wakeman was found not guilty: “Some scruple not to say his lordship had store of gold for this good peice [sic] of service,” Luttrell reports.135 Wakeman is indeed made to write of this rumor in his letter to Scroggs: “I should have taken you for Justice her self, but they say She is Blind, and I am sure you can see (as the old homely Proverb has it) which side your Bread is Butter’d on” (recto). The initial portion of the letter codes both Wakeman and Scroggs as papists: “I cannot but wonder,” Wakeman writes, “at your Confidence in staying in England among the National Betlem of Resolute Hereticks; for I think the people are all Mad, and resolve to question the integrity of the Saints, since they have Impeached the Justice” (recto), while Wakeman revels in his abilities as murderous apothecary: “To Kill Secundum Artem requires as much Skill, as to cure” (recto). Wakeman also requests, since “you are acquainted with my Cyphers: pray let me have a Letter from you as soon as you can” (verso), which implicates both men in the secret correspondence networks of Catholics. The letter, in fact, concludes with a long postscript in which Wakeman writes favorably of Louis XIV as tyrant: “the French King has more than one Parliament in his Kingdom, and by this means he has made them as gentle as Asses, and without either wincing or braying, carry his Edicts thorow all his large Territories” (verso). Wakeman promises to send Scroggs the same policies to tame the English Parliament before they can impeach him. Scroggs did not receive his quietus est, which is mentioned in the letter, until April 11, 1681, having been removed as chief justice by King

Epistolary Satire  125 Charles on that date.136 The letter, bearing the date “Paris, Feb. 25. New Stile,” was therefore antedated—constructed to anticipate later events, namely, the calling of a new Parliament by Charles for March 21 in Oxford: in his letter Wakeman invites Scroggs to Paris (where Wakeman had moved after his acquittal), advising Scroggs “to shun the Storm that is like to blow from Oxford, about the 21th. of March next” (recto). After Charles dissolved Parliament on January 20, 1681, interrupting the proceedings against Scroggs in the process, he called for a new one to meet on March 21 at Oxford; yet after the new Oxford ­Parliament demanded Scroggs be committed, Charles dissolved it, as well, and the impeachment proceedings against Scroggs were effectively terminated.137 The satirist writing in the name of Wakeman in this letter suggests that the Oxford Parliament will be a grave threat to Scroggs, and Wakeman even concludes the postscript, “Be careful of your health this Spring” (verso), in which an ordinary caution from a doctor to take care of oneself is transformed into the suggestion that Scroggs’s life is in jeopardy—execution for treason by a Parliament set against him. Again, the sheet having been published after April 11, no execution had come to pass. Throughout the letter, however, Wakeman advises Scroggs to flee ­England to avoid the possibility of execution—and flight of course implies guilt. Another satire printed during this time has Scroggs lament, What a damn’d Fool was I, that I did not run away in time? Could not I have had the Wit of Wakeman, put my ten thousand Bagg of Guineys under my Arm, and Trooped off to drink the Waters of Burboon?138 The author of this satirical letter is therefore condemning Scroggs as guilty in lieu of the official punishment that never occurred. Two broadsheets, Mr. Ferguson’s Letter to His Friends in London (1683 / F751) and an answer published by a different printer The Brethrens Answer in London to Mr. Ferguson’s Letter (1683 / B4383), like other examples we have seen, together constitute a collaborative propaganda effort that satirizes Scottish pamphleteer and conspirator Robert Ferguson after he fled to Amsterdam following the discovery of the Rye House Plot.139 Since Ferguson was a nonconformist, his religious propensities constitute the foreground of the pamphlet; his brethren—­“fellow Labourer[s] and fellow Sufferer[s] … in the Common Cause and works of the Laird” (recto)—are broadly defined, as with popes and sectaries, as satanic. Ferguson’s requests to his friends to pass on his acknowledgment to others take up much of the letter, including one to the ghost of the recently executed Rye House conspirator Baron ­William Russell. Several individuals are given comical, insulting nicknames: “there is I know Innumerable Friends to be remembred but … forget not all our Friends in Tribulation, and likewise Sir Thomas Creswel … and the two

126  Epistolary Satire Sir Wouldbys Pa— and Du—” (verso). Whigs one and all, Sir Thomas Cresswell is MP Thomas Player, tied to procuress Elizabeth Cresswell, while the two Sir Politic Wouldbes, named after the foolish character in Ben Jonson’s Volpone, are Thomas Papillon and John Dubois, both Whig candidates for sheriff in 1682 but who failed to gain the shrievalty.140 Since Ferguson fled to avoid punishment for his involvement in the Rye House Plot, these associations are foremost to reveal the conspiratorial nature of his Whig allies and the cabalistic character of dissenting sects; Ferguson indeed makes the two synonymous by calling himself “chief agent in the blessed Conspiracy” (verso). The postscript reads: “It is my will and pleasure that this Letter be forthwith Printed, and dispers[ed] abroad for the good of the Cause, and for the consolation of all our deject[ed] brethren, but let it not fall into the hands of the wicked, who Scoff and Jeer a[t] [ou]r Godly undertakings” (verso); of course, it would be impossible to keep the letter out of the hands of those “who scoff and Jeer a[t] [ou]r Godly undertakings” once printed, as scoffing and jeering are precisely what a Tory reader of this satirical letter of comic self-­exposure would do. Ferguson’s comrades in Brethrens Answer in London to Mr. Ferguson’s Letter respond to several specific details in Ferguson’s initial letter and reiterate the ungodly character of their endeavors: “it had pleased our Infernal Master, (whose work we do, and whose wages we shall assuredly receive)” (recto). They also recognize the treasonous nature of their undertaking: “nothing but Woes and Curses, and Judgements … are to be pour’d out upon us if we go on, and persest, in such horrid, and Rebellious Practices” (recto) in broad self-­condemnation. In the fashion of Letter from Paris from Sir George Wakeman to His Friend Sir W. S., this pair of letters not only serves as a form of punishment of one who (in the eyes of the satirist) has escaped justice, but also as ridicule of one who is still engaged in a cause that (again, in the eyes of the satirist) has collapsed. In Mr. Ferguson’s Letter to His Friends in London, Ferguson refers to “our Friend Titus” (verso), connected as Titus Oates was with radical Whig politics. After the panic aroused by the Popish Plot began to subside, mocking letters as if to Oates were published in significant numbers. Although Oates was not the principal butt of some of these satires, because he was the public face of the Popish Plot, others of his real or imaged alliance were derided in association with him. Among the first satirical letters was A Letter from Sir W. Waller to Doctor Otes Concerning the Times (1682 / W546). William Waller was a London justice of the peace, zealous in ferreting out Catholics, a witness against Edward Fitzharris at his trial for treason, and the discoverer of the Meal Tub Plot; he was believed to have enriched himself with the goods seized ­ ovember from those Catholics he raided, and he fled England in early N 1681 when the tide of the Popish Plot began to turn.141 Waller and Oates in fact associated, and Waller begins the letter by declaring that

Epistolary Satire  127 his ongoing correspondence with Oates has been heartening him but mourns nostalgically, “those good days are gon, when we freely Feasted and Plotted without Order, or Check from Law or Council” (recto).142 The hypocrisy of a puritan such as Waller gorging himself persists in his envy of their enemies who are now enjoying “Intemperate Lusts and Gluttony” (recto). Popular accounts of Waller, in fact, foster a characterization of Waller as gluttonous and lascivious. Luttrell reports, for instance, that “Sir William Waller haveing taken one Higgie out of the Gatehouse, where he was committed for treason by order of councill, and kept him drinking all night in a tavern, his majestie has turn’d him out of commission of peace.”143 In the entirely ironic Sir William Waller, His Vindication by a Friend That Understood His Life and Conversation (1680 / S3902A), Waller’s “friend” (author Jonathan Heading) wonders, “What a Plague had you to do with Higgy all night at a Tavern? It had been more fit you had been in bed with our Parsons Wife all night, in my opinion” (3); and in a later satirical pamphlet ventriloquizing Oates, Oates is made to write of Waller as “ready at a Bawdy-house in Holland” to give assistance to the Whigs when required.144 Letter from Sir W. Waller to Doctor Otes serves as a compelling example of how a fact (drinking with Higgie) was elaborated in order to accentuate, accurately or not, the character traits of Waller—in this case, to depict him as hypocritical. As Waller writes about himself in his letter, “It wou’d stick in a Precissions [i.e., puritan’s] stomack to see so much good meat lost, and not able to imploy his Teeth upon the least Bone” (recto) to describe both feasting and cannibalistic consumption of religious enemies; the author of this pamphlet, in fact, does a remarkably effective job of characterizing Waller as voracious and rapacious in all his actions—in consuming comestibles and in preying on Catholics. The author goes so far as to depict Waller as if feeding on letters themselves for nourishment: “Thy Correspondence since I came into these Parts,” Waller writes to Oates, “hath afforded me much Consolation, it hath been like fatness to my Ribs, and as marrow to my Bones” (recto). Perhaps this is intended as an absurd exaggeration of the practice of kissing a letter, where the emotional circuits of exchange exemplified in kissing the ­material object are transmuted into a coarse manifestation of oral gratification. Waller’s excessive use of biblical reference in the letter is meant to demonstrate his sanctimoniousness, and the allusions are, ironically, turned back on him: “It is a shame to the Brethren, that we the true Israelites, should become a Laughing-stock and Scorn to the unsanctified Jesubite [i.e., papist],” he writes (verso). Biblical reference indeed peppers the letter, marked, for instance, in Waller’s lamentation regarding the failures of Monmouth and Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of ­Shaftesbury—“Where’s Absalon’s Valor? Are Achitophel’s Councels turn’d into Foolishness …?” (verso)—as they, among others, have failed the Whig cause, paving the way for “a York reign” (verso); the

128  Epistolary Satire Whig anxiety of James acceding to the crown expressed by Waller therefore informs the pamphlet with ­distinct political critique as well. Although imagined as if written by the same correspondent, A Letter from Sir William Waller at Roterdam to Titus Oates in London, Intercepted at Dover and Publish’d for General Satisfaction (1683 / W546A) offers a rather different characterization of Waller. In this Tory broadsheet, Waller is portrayed less as a nostalgic, hypocritical puritan than as a frightened, despairing Whig. Waller begins his letter by mourning several executed Whigs (College; William, Lord Russell; Thomas ­Walcott; John Rowse; William Hone) as well as others recently fled: Shaftesbury, “our Idol Perkin” (the Duke of Monmouth), “his Brother sterling [Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll], together with … [Thomas] Armstrong” (recto). The majority of these individuals were Rye House conspirators, making the discovery of, and the executions following, the Rye House Plot the precise context of this broadsheet. Waller is in a “Hell of Despair”; he bemoans the loss of “The Cause” (verso). Significantly, the propagandist authoring this sheet has Waller tie “The Cause” to the anti-Catholic frauds practiced just before the inception of the first civil war, “that Shrowd of imaginary Fears of Popery and Slavery, wherewith we deceived the vulgar eye,” in obvious self-incrimination; “Our drift is apparent [Waller continues]; and no wonder, our methods being the same with Forty-One” (verso). Waller also intersperses his letter with references to an illegal Association allegedly found in Shaftesbury’s chambers, a document used as evidence in Shaftesbury’s November 1681 treason trial, to recall Whig treachery in the Association’s support of the use of force to exclude James from the throne.145 The document—­legitimate or not—was consistently referred to after Shaftesbury’s trial, not only by those attacking Shaftesbury but also by those seeking to defend him. For instance, after the charges against Shaftesbury were dropped on ­February 13, 1682, a pamphlet printed by Whig printer Richard Baldwin appeared, The Addresses Importing an Abhorrence of an Association, Pretended to Have Been Seized in the E of Shaftsbury’s Closet (1682 / A569). L’Estrange took immediate issue with this pamphlet in his Observator and emphasized the document’s authenticity: “the [PRETENDED Paper] though Legally Prov’d.”146 The Association document subsequently found its way into various narratives about Shaftesbury. The charge of Whig plotting is also leveled in Great News from the King of Poland, or An Intercepted Letter from Tony, the First King of Poland, to the Reverend Salamanca Doctor (1682 / G1735C), where Tory accusations of Whigs’ apparent desire for an elective monarchy energize a characterization of Whig leader Shaftesbury as the king of ­Poland, while the nature of the Association document (discovered, as testified in court, in Shaftesbury’s closet) is a focal point of the pamphlet, insinuating clandestine intrigue.147 The letter is dated as if from Poland, October 27, 1682, but Shaftesbury at that time was in London in hiding,

Epistolary Satire  129 fleeing to Amsterdam the following month.148 Oates and Shaftesbury in fact associated—Shaftesbury was his patron.149 As Shaftesbury is made to write, he misses his “beloved Associating-Friends with whom you Know, we used to Cabal it from Tavern to Tavern,” and Oates himself was always “a fast and Elbow-Friend” (recto). Shaftesbury sympathizes with Oates at the unraveling of the Popish Plot, writing that he is “in sorrow for the discovery of our well begun-Associating-Intrigue” (recto). As Waller did in Letter from Sir William Waller at Roterdam to Titus Oates, Shaftesbury is made to draw a comparison between the present circumstances and the conflict between Parliament and king in 1641: “it is not impossible but the Stars may have the same Revolutions in 82 as they had in 41” (recto), he writes, to express hope for the Whigs’ cause; but the term “Revolution” of course carries a second, loaded meaning, and the reader is invited to consider MP Shaftesbury’s words and actions as correspondingly treasonous to Charles II. The letter ends with a character sketch composed by the Shaftesbury writing the letter: “A True Character of an Upstart Courtier.” It begins and proceeds generically enough, but in the last four lines it is clear that Shaftesbury is writing about himself in the third person in a transparent self-libeling: the ­upstart courtier “may be grown so Notorious for private, though Damnable, Associations and cunning Insinuations (by the help of a little of your Salamanca Divinity) that he must either Fly his Country or submit to the Ax or Halter” (verso). Because some Whigs sympathized with Hungarian Protestant Count Emeric Teckely (in Hungarian, Imre Thököly), who joined the Turks in besieging Catholic Austria, these Whigs were called “Teckelites” and portrayed as supporters of the Ottoman forces invading Europe in the early 1680s—and hence as heretics to Christianity.150 Zealous Whigs such as Oates could therefore be compellingly allied with Teckely. ­Besides the general identification of Whigs as Teckelites, a specific event also motivated some comical letters and other satires about Oates as Teckelite—a coffeehouse altercation in late August 1683 as described in an official report: There was a dispute at the Amsterdam coffee-house last Thursday, in effect whether the Turks or Christians were the honester men. A gentleman siding with the Christians and being a little too familiar with the Salamanca Doctor Oates told him he was a rascal and struck him two or three blows over the head with his cane. The gentleman was wedged in on the wrong side of the table and could not make him a return, but only with a dish of warm coffee in the eyes of him.151 L’Estrange leapt on this event and in his Observator reports, a Certain Ceremony … Pass’d Last Week at the Amsterdam-­CoffeeHouse. There was a Gentleman, that by the warmth of his Zeal

130  Epistolary Satire for the Turks against the Christians, gave to Understand that Inclinations he had to be Initiated into the Mahometans Faith; which being made known, there follow’d a short Formulary in the way of a Dialogue; and then the Candidate Lifted up his Voice, and Cry’d, [You are an Impudent Fellow; An Impudent RASCALL, Sirrah:] Upon which words … the Candidates Face was Washt with a dish of Hot Coffee; which being a Turkish Liquor, I suppose; might be a Turkish Ceremony for the Introducing of a Teckelite-Christian in the Turkish Communion, And as much as if he had Christen’d him Turk Titus.152 These two accounts together—a news report preserved in the State Papers and L’Estrange’s droll rendition in Observator—offer a concise illustration of how news is transformed into satire. The incident also allowed L’Estrange and others to tap into the cultural narrative of Oates’s irreligiousness. Indeed, once in the public consciousness, the characterization of Oates as “Turk Titus” was subsequently deployed to satirize him. Such is the case in the broadsheet A Letter from Count Teckely to the Salamanca Doctor (1683 / L1455). The letter itself is undated, but the sheet was published sometime between the beginning of the Battle of Vienna on July 14, 1683, and its conclusion on September 12. Teckely begins, “Venerable Sir, / The savour of Your Reverend Name … hath for these few years past, been strong in the Nostrils of most part of E ­ urope” (recto). The letter is constructed as a sort of letter of introduction; the men do not personally know one another. Teckely goes on to thank Oates for his help in “overturning the very Foundations of Christianity” with “the true Protestant Mahometan Party,” for all of which the “Grand Seignior” (recto), Sultan Mehmed IV, is grateful. Teckely, in fact, is writing on behalf of the sultan, indicating that were it not for Oates’s wishes “for his [the sultan’s] good Success” (recto) the sultan would have abandoned the siege of Vienna. The author of the broadsheet also implicates the Duke of Monmouth: Teckely requests that Oates pass along to Monmouth his acknowledgment—he is called “Prince Mon ——— Teckely” (verso). Indeed, the author’s implication is that the Popish Plot and the anti-Habsburg rebellion that Teckely was leading were part of the same intrigue.153 The satirist employs ad hominem attacks as well, for instance, sending up Oates’s homosexuality: Teckely promises Oates that the sultan will furnish him with “a continual supply of Males to satisfie Your carnal Appetite [and] promises to erect a masculine Seraglio, where a constant number of Bums shall be continually prostrate to receive Your Discipline” (verso). The satirist does not suggest that Teckely and Oates participated in an ongoing ­correspondence—an unusual tactic in these sorts of epistolary fictions—but nevertheless unites

Epistolary Satire  131 them in order to suggest comprehensive scheming and shared religious objectives.

Yet More Epistolary Satire of Titus Oates Titus Oates was marked as the recipient of fictional letters in which he was satirized, but other letters mocking Oates were written in his name. Oates’s biographer refers to “that Epistle-like style” in which Oates ­frequently wrote; perhaps this idiosyncrasy provided some stimulus to compose expressly epistolary satire in his name.154 Dr. Oates’s Answer to Count Teckly’s Letter Giving Him a True Account of the Present Horrible Plot (London?, 1683 / O28A) is a response to Letter from Count Teckely to the Salamanca Doctor, dated, in fact, “From the Amsterdam / Coffee-house” (verso). Though it was printed after the failure of the siege of Vienna, Oates is made to reply directly to some of the content of the prior publication, for instance, where Oates states, “I must confess I began to be tired with our True Blue Protestant Bums, (having Bugger’d almost the whole Party over) that I long for those ­Mahometan backsides, assured me in the Grand Seigniors Masculine Seraglio” (verso). Regarding attacks on Oates’s sexuality, Paul Hammond has written, “more gossip about Oates must have been in circulation than we can now document. The allegations of sodomy which appear in the propaganda against Oates assume that readers will have heard about such behaviour.”155 Oates’s sexuality is assumed to be a determinant of his character, which is modeled as immoral. Oates’s greed also comes in for attack in the pamphlet: his frequent requests for money during his time in the spotlight are ridiculed in an almost Iago-esque way where, after appealing for money in a prior part of the letter, Oates writes again about dispatching to Teckely “The True Protestant Mahometans (send but money) [and] you shall have them all” (verso). Overall, Oates is made to declare himself as zealous “for the good old Mahometan Cause, as ever” (verso) in his response letter to Teckely. Another response letter, Dr. Oats’s Answer to Count Teckleys ­L etter, Intercepted at Dover (1683 / O27), was also printed after the Battle of Vienna had concluded with Teckely and the Turks’ defeat on September 12. In the initial lines, Oates writes, “An’t please your Mightiness yours, I Received—Anno Dom 1683. September the 25th new Stile” (1); however, a preliminary fake letter with this date as if from Teckely, if ever published, does not appear to be extant, and it may be that Dr. Oats’s Answer to Count Teckleys Letter Intercepted at Dover was conceived as an answer to Letter from Count Teckely to the Salamanca Doctor (though that letter was not given a date) since it responds to specific content in that broadsheet, for instance, Oates’s reminder of the ­Sultan’s promise, “let the Sarraglio, be forthwith  made  ready  for  me”  (2).

132  Epistolary Satire The satirist who composed Dr. Oats’s Answer to Count Teckleys Letter has Oates concoct a remarkable scatological, even Rabelaisian allegory of the conception and birth of the Popish Plot, as well as the ensuing ones: About ten years agone, this Kingdom I say, was got with Child, with a huge and horrible Popish-plot, it had neither Head, nor Foot, but sixty thousand Rumps and Tails, and what d’ye call ‘ems.’ Now Sir, about five years agone---her Belly began to Gripe----she made foul Faces and lookt very black in the Fundament; and fell into Labour with this Plot. (1)156 The allegory continues with a catalogue of the various “Men-Midwives” (1) who tried (and failed) to deliver the child. After Shaftesbury failed, Lord Russell … fell to work Tooth and Nail; but being too hot ­upon’t happens to lay hold on the Arse gut and all be sh[i]t his Fingers. Upon this misfortune he fell into a desperate passion; and in Revenge resolved to cut his Majesties Throat, but just in the attempt, his own Head dropt off. (1) Monmouth (called “Perking Teckeley,” [2])—a combination of Perkin Warbeck, pretender to throne of King Henry VII, and Teckely—tries and fails, but Oates with the help of Thomas Howard, 2nd Baron of Escrick, John Rumsey, Robert West, and Josiah Keeling births the child. But then the child betrays them: But how do you think this Brat serv’d us at last; for all we have lick’t it into five hundred shapes and colors; nothing serves its turn but speaking truth with a Pox to the Rascal: & has spoiled all our future proceedings. (2) This broadsheet was published after the discovery of the Rye House Plot; it names several of the conspirators (Howard, Rumsey, West, and Keeling) and the brat’s betrayal of the conspirators is of course the failure of this latest plot. By writing this letter, Oates is suggesting that he was deeply involved in the Rye House Plot, although in fact he was at most tangential—even L’Estrange did not implicate Oates directly.157 Still, Oates writes of himself and of the rest of the plotting Whigs, “unless our party can get to a head, before the K. calls a Parliament, all our Gang must, of necessity, flie to your Mightiness for Refuge” (2). Unlike satire meant to indict those who have (in the eyes of the satirist) escaped

Epistolary Satire  133 justice, this broadsheet implies that Oates must or will soon flee, or else be hanged: Oates concludes his postscript by referring to a gift of a barrel of oysters; but instead of oysters the barrel was filled with “nothing but Shells and a long Rope Quoyled up in the middle, and frosted---over with a T------” (2) for Traitor. What appears to be a reprinted adaptation of Dr. Oats’s Answer to Count Teckleys Letter was published as Oates New Shams Discovered and How They Carried It on from Time to Time, Sent in a ­L etter to His Grace James, Duke of Monmouth, from Doctor Titus Oates (O62A-B).158 It is a print letter redux—the same letter except that the first paragraph and the postscript are deleted, and (along with other ­minor modifications) the addressee is changed to Monmouth. Republication of almost identical content demonstrates malleability of application as the context requires, for this broadsheet was either published on the heels of the discovery of the Rye House Plot, hence implicating Monmouth in it, or else upon the failure of the Monmouth Rebellion in the summer of 1685 (maybe both). Its internal inconsistencies are manifest, however: although the letter is addressed to Monmouth, a reference to Monmouth in the third person as “Perking Teckley” occurs in the body of the letter. What both Dr. Oats’s Answer to Count Teckleys Letter and Oates New Shams Discovered share, however, is an intention to implicate Oates in plots in which he had no hand. Oates himself embraced epistolarity in a series of publications beginning with Eikon Basilike, or The Picture of the Late King James Drawn to the Life … in a Letter to Himself (1696 / O36), followed the next year by Eikon Basilike Deutera (O39) and Eikon Basilike Trite (O40A), all in the same letter-to-James II form. It is fitting therefore that a late satire on Oates parodies his epistolary usages: Eikon Brotoloigou, or The Picture of Titus Oates … in a Letter to Himself (1697 / E313-A), in which Oates is made to write the letter literally to himself, addressing himself in the third person throughout—all of which implies considerable epistolary narcissism.159 No doubt a characterization of Oates as narcissistic reflects common public perceptions as in, for instance, John Evelyn’s description of Oates “as a vain, insolent man.”160 And just as Oates had in his Eikon Basilike publications held a mirror up to James to reveal to him his character and actions, the author of Eikon Brotoloigou has Oates hold the mirror up to himself—though it is of course a distorted, funhouse mirror: “And now, Doctor, as you have look’d back into the Miscarriages of Princes, pray turn one Glance upon some little Peccadilios of your own” (6), he writes to himself. Oates elaborates to himself: Sir, in all the true Strokes you have made in the Picture [of James II and Charles II], you have notoriously flatter’d the Painter. For in drawing of King James and his Brother, both at full Length, you have here and there dasht in some few Lineaments of your own,

134  Epistolary Satire viz. your Virtues, Innocence, Services to the Nation; together with a lamentable Outcry of Wrongs, Oppression, suffering for Faith and a good Conscience, and what not; when there are Thousands in the World, that believe not one of these Qualifications, Graces, Merits, Pretentions or Titles, belong to you. (4) Throughout the course of the letter, Oates calls himself an “egregious Blockhead” (10) whose “hideous Incongruities, Absurdities, Amusements, and Contradictions … have composed your whole Testimony” (16). At 27 pages, the pamphlet extends the epistolary self-­exposure we have seen in other satirical letters. Oates is indeed constructed to be keenly aware that his deceptions deserve satirical condemnation: Had every Oracle you deliver’d, been founded upon as solid a ­Foundation of Veracity [as the truthful bits of the Eikon Basilike publications], no Person in the World should have been louder in your Praises, than my self; nay, this present Paper, instead of a Reprimand or Satyr, should then have been an Eulogy and Panegyrick. (5)

The 1688–1689 Revolution and Its Aftermath As with other periods of political and religious tension, the Revolution of 1688–89 saw its share of satirical letters. The broadsheet A Letter to Father Petres from the Devil upon the Miscarriage of Their Affairs Here (1689 / L1702A) is a satirical verse epistle. Although the letter is addressed to Edward Petre—Jesuit adviser and privy councilor to James II— the first portion of the poem specifically condemns James, “­Malitious even to the last Degree, / Nor equal’d in Revenge and Cruelty” (recto); indeed, the succession of the monarchs of the House of Stuart is the definitive source of the failures: “his Male Family is not exus’d, / Whose Moral Vertues are too plain diffus’d” (recto). The next portion of the poem is reserved for condemnation of Queen Mary of Modena, who is characterized less as an accomplice of “that Philistian Lord, Romes great Da Da” (verso) than as virtually a succubus who used her sexuality to rule over James and the three kingdoms: “This Delilah Usurp’d the Soveraign Sway … He bore the Name, but She assum’d the Place” (verso). Such characterizations of Catholic queens are nothing new—as with Queen Henrietta Maria (and before her Mary I and Mary, Queen of Scots), this is an established anti-Catholic invective. This depiction of James and Mary together demonstrates a kingdom upside down—­ appropriate to a demonic parody of a properly governed state.161 In the last portion of the poem, the devil reveals his role in all of this, in particular “That strange Conception, with a Birth as strange” (verso), that of

Epistolary Satire  135 James, Prince of Wales. Although writing about a different text, Jennifer Airey’s observation “That the child may have been ‘made’ rather than ‘born’ bespeaks its status as a potentially demonic interloper threatening the kingdom” could not apply better to Letter to Father Petres from the Devil.162 The devil ends his epistle by relishing the thought of Petre and Mary with him in hell, at “which Time it shall be my daily Care, / To load you both with Horror and Despair” (verso). Unlike other letters from the devil, the Satan composing this letter does not encourage its recipient or those mentioned in the letter to continue conspiring or scheming; the logic of this particular propaganda would not admit this, since the author of this sheet clearly asserts that the male line of Stuarts is at an end—James, Mary, and Petre are utterly beaten in the eyes of the satirist. Indeed, by accentuating Mary’s dominance, this satirist calls attention to James’s lack of manliness; debilitated masculinity is imaged in the diffusion of “Moral Vertue”—but a virtue that will now, the poem implies, be supplied by William of Orange.163 The force of the sexual satire leveled at Mary is intensified in a broadside titled The Queens Letter from France to His Highness the Prince of Orange (1689? / Q157D). It is principally a woman’s letter of petition in form, as Mary is purportedly asking William to take her into his favor. The gendered language used by women in handwritten letters, where traits such as weakness and fragility are underlined in order to encourage pity for the petitioners, is mimicked in the letter.164 Mary begins by encouraging William’s sympathy for her by expressing her “grief for the Loss of a Crown” yet immediately admits in comic self-reproach that her grief is a result of the “inordinate opinion of my Self” due to the “Natural frailty of my Sex.” She acted as she did, she explains, as a consequence of feeling “as giddy as a Man in his Drink” when finding herself “on the Pinacle of Honor.” The following passage of her confession, however, admits no ambiguity about her temperament: Tho’ I aim’d at the Ruin of the Establish’t Church and State, yet, I assure you, I did it for the good of the Peoples Souls; and tho’ I consented to have all their Throats Cut, yet Father Peters satisfied me, it might be done in the Fear of the Lord. Mary mourns that her kingdom has been reduced to a duchy but moves to conclusion by hinting at her desires, the purpose of her petition: for William to allow her back into England—possibly as his concubine. As Mary writes, “Well Sir, if you have either complaisance or good Nature, you’d quit any pretence to save a Womans longing; for I am as surely in a Teeming condition at present, as ever I was of a Prince of Wales,” where teeming may mean fertile (rather than pregnant) since, according to the cultural narrative of the sham prince, Mary was never with child. On the other hand, Mary may be enacting another deception: in

136  Epistolary Satire referring to herself as pregnant, Mary is reemphasizing the vulnerability and fragility she expressed in the first part of the letter; but since she was never pregnant with the Prince of Wales in the first place, this current pregnancy must also be a ruse, in this case a lie to get her back into England. In either case, Mary is ventriloquized to use her sexuality to obtain her desires. To close, Mary offers as guarantor the pope who “himself will be Bound for my good behaviour; and to tie up my Hands from any personal mischief”—a statement suggestive of both bondage and abjection—though she is offering as guarantor an individual who is just as untrustworthy as she is. The satirist who portrayed Mary in this fashion reiterates narratives about her promiscuity. The author of A Letter from Lewis the Great to James the Less, His Lieutenant in Ireland, with Reflections by Way of Answer to the Said Letter (London? 1689–1690 / L1487) does likewise. It is a verse epistle with what is constructed as James’s verbal reaction— that is, James’s response is not framed as a return letter, which implies that the relationship between James and Louis is at an end. Louis XIV ridicules chiefly the weakness of James; he states, “what I enjoyn you be sure to observe, / Since you know not to Rule, I will teach you to Serve” (recto), giving weight to the narrative that James was ineffectual and ever a creature of Louis.165 The counterpoint to James’s weakness is William’s strength, “your bold-Son-in-Law, / The valiant Nassaw” (recto), as Louis calls him. Louis also casts Mary as licentious—“your Spouse does our Pego [i.e., penis] when e’re it will st[and]” (recto)— whom James, in his reaction to Louis’s letter, blames in part for his failure: “I’ve abandon’d my reason to pleasure a Trull, / Who has made me her Bubble, her Cuckold and Fool” (verso). James’s reliance on Jesuits also comes in for criticism. Louis writes, “I acknowledge your folly has made me more wise, / I see with my own, and not Jesuits eyes” (recto). To cap his reproach, Louis insinuates his lack of faith in James’s military endeavors in Ireland: “You’re a Souldier of Fortune and fight for your pay, / You know your reward, if you once run away” (recto). James admits as much: “I thought I had Valour, / But I find it was Choler” (verso), which leads James to his conclusion. James curses Louis and Mary of Modena as he acknowledges William and Mary as the rightful monarchs: May his [Louis’s] Land be o’re-run, By that Champion our Son: So I’le close up with her [Mary] who that mischief begun: May the Curse of three Kingdoms for ever attend her, While to WILLIAM and MARY my Crown I surrender. (verso) In Letter to Father Petres from the Devil, William’s assumption of rule was regarded as crucial in order to restore the royal potency petered out

Epistolary Satire  137 in the Stuart line; the James constructed in this letter also demonstrates his weakness but, more importantly, his willingness to surrender the crown to stronger sovereigns. Like Popes Letter to Maddam Cellier and Maddam Celliers Answer to the Popes Letter, Tyrconnel’s Letter to the French King from ­Ireland (1690 / T3579A) and The French King’s Answer to Mons. ­Tyrconnel’s Letter (1690 / L3099) constitute a dispatch-and-response pair of ­publications, both printed by Richard Baldwin.166 Although communication between Tyrconnell and Louis was mediated by L ­ ouis’s ­ambassador Jean Antoine de Mesmes, Count D’Avaux, Tyrconnell exchanged a few letters directly with the French king, which consist of straightforward discussions of military matters.167 Tyrconnell is ventriloquized to begin his letter with a salutation mimicking an official letter of state, “Thrice Invincible, Thrice August, and Thrice Christian ­Majesty” (1)—in authentic letters to Louis, Tyrconnell’s salutation was simply “Sire”—and composes an excessively flattering letter of compliment intended to demonstrate his obsequiousness to Louis—in something of the spirit of the fictional letter of flattery as if from George Goring to King Charles I in Relation of the Sundry Occurrences in ­Ireland … [with] the True Copy of a Letter Sent from Colonell Goring to His Majesty (in Chapter 1). Although a measured historical appraisal of Tyrconnell does not characterize him as obsequious, Tyrconnell’s sycophancy was a circulating cultural narrative.168 The popular ballad “Lillibulero,” which is about Tyrconnell, includes the line “For Talbot’s the dog and Tyrconnell’s the ass.”169 In writing to Louis, Tyrconnell refers to “your Intrepid Councils, your Irresistable Arms, your unfathomable Conduct, and stupendious Allies” (1), but in another superlative comparison Tyrconnell is made to betray the satire beneath the compliment: “It is by these Inimitable Methods, that your unrival’d Majesty hath Aggrandiz’d the Throne of France, whilst the immortal Names of Nero and Caligula, will fade and languish” (1). The core of the letter consists of a detailed blazon of the unmatched qualities of Louis, which in the satirical logic of the pamphlet are of course criticisms, and which principally concern Louis’s excessive reliance on bad council, his choice of non-Christian allies, his excessive military spending, and his generalized destruction of Europe. And if the letter began in seeming praise of Louis, as it progresses no doubt is left about the nature of Louis, just as the conclusion makes patent the character of Tyrconnell, as he subscribes himself, “Your Most Christian Majesties, / Most Bigotted, / Most Stupid, and / Most Constant / Vassal, Adorer and Admirer, / ­T YRCONNEL” (4). Tyrconnell’s fawning nature is picked up in the salutation of Louis’s response letter: “Right Trusty, Right Obeysant, and Right Couchant Champion, and Creature” (1), and Louis immediately reveals his immoral character in acknowledging Tyrconnell’s prior letter: “your most

138  Epistolary Satire obsequious Letters kissed our most Potent hands at our High and Mighty Seraglio at Versailes” (1). Louis’s self-praise throughout the l­etter borders on a megalomania fitting for an individual bent on establishing a universal monarchy: “Can We not Thunder like Jupiter, Fabricate Arms like Vulcan … not Out-do these and the whole Pantheon of Old-­ fashion’d Gods?” (2). As in Tyrconnell’s letter, in Louis’s letter the bulk of his observations concerns his involvement in foreign affairs. The pair of letters condemns Tyrconnell of obsequiousness but details the several transgressions of Louis, as well; the satire does not make Louis look trivial but instead depicts him as an immoral, narcissistic tyrant—yet so disproportionately so that in praising himself Louis descends into bathos and not without a diminishing self-confidence. In the last paragraph, for example, Louis communicates a sense of his impending defeat: “if that Active Prince King William can by no means be prevail’d with to remit of his Rigour … My Victorious Self, and your Great Master [James II], are resolved to betake our selves to the Sanctuary of some Holy Roof, and there to end our Days,” while Louis’s subscription, “Given at Our Castle at Versailes, / in the last Year of Our Puissance” (4), likewise communicates pessimism. Louis is not exactly depicted as insane in this letter, but by its close Louis’s megalomania is exposed as self-delusion as he begins to recognize his approaching end. The same sycophancy narrative energizes A Letter from Monsieur Tyrconnel from Limerick in Ireland to the Late Queen at St. Germans in France (1690 / T3576), which is constructed as a letter of compliment Tyrconnell has written to his “Most Transcendent Madam” (1).170 ­Tyrconnell elevates court compliment to the level of absurdity by referring to Mary as “our living Saint” to whom “we bring our humble Devotions” (2) in a play on Catholic idolatry. Tyrconnell in fact held correspondence with Mary during this time; the sycophancy of this fake letter, however, bears no resemblance to the contents of the chiefly forthright (as opposed to complimental) letters Tyrconnell wrote to Mary.171 Moreover, the letter was written as if Tyrconnell were within the walls of Limerick during the late August–early September 1690 siege, though Tyrconnell was not inside at the time.172 The fact of the siege nevertheless gives some urgency to Tyrconnell’s request that Mary intercede with Louis to send more French troops, while the middle portion of the letter details James’s military failures since the Battle of Boyne (July 1690). The denunciation intended by the author is leveled across the board, at Mary, at James, at Louis, and at Tyrconnell himself—“as soon as their King [William] came, we valiantly Retreated over the Boyne” (2), Tyrconnell writes—while sexual innuendo directed at Mary is at a minimum. Rather, in the midst of praising her Tyrconnell (ironically) ridicules her, for instance, for “prefer[ring] the felicity of an Entertainment at St. Germans above the Throne of England, and three Kingdoms to

Epistolary Satire  139 pay you Homage” (2). The satirist ventriloquizing Tyrconnell elevates James’s military might to preposterousness in Tyrconnell’s praise of James, who is envisaged as a knight from a romance stirred into action by his lady, Mary: Who … can doubt of that happy Reverse of Fortune that must ­attend my great Master, when he shall return with fresh Vigour to persue his Conquests here? When he shall come with a Zeal Enflamed, Valour Exalted, Indignation Whetted, Courage Pointed … That if all the Hereticks had but one Head … his derived Force would be sufficient to dispatch him at one Blow. (2) Tyrconnell also brings into focus the larger scope of international ­ uropean politics in his praise (for the satirist, denigration) of “that E Unbounded Monarchs [Louis’s] Enterprizes in England, and the other parts of Europe” (3): Louis’s universal monarchy. The cultural narrative regarding Louis’s efforts to achieve a universal monarchy began as early as 1667–68, but intensified during the 1689–97 period.173 This narrative was also invigorated by nonsatirical epistolary fictions, and is articulated in A Letter from the Pope to the French King (1672 / L1537A) and Three Letters (1689 / T1099-A), which I examined in Chapter 1. A Louis even less confident than that portrayed in French King’s Answer to Mons. Tyrconnel’s Letter is depicted in A Letter from the French King to the Great Turk … with the Grand Seignior’s ­Answer (London?, 1692 / L1520A). Louis is imagined to write to Sultan Ahmed II after Louis’s ships were dispersed and pursued by Dutch and ­English vessels after the battles of Barfleur and the Hogue (May 19–24, 1692)— an attempted naval invasion of England to restore James.174 In the first half of his letter Louis indeed accentuates his failures and fears: “Par Dieu, I am undone, undone for ever,” he laments, “my Invincible ­A rmado hath most unhappily rancounter’d with an English Drake. … O wo, wo to me! what shall I do? I shake and tremble, I quake with a panick Fear” (1). Louis wails that this naval defeat precipitates his utter ruin: “I’m forsaken both by God and Man!” (1). In the second half of the letter Louis pleads for aid, revealing himself as a closet Muslim in the process. If you assist me now in this my greatest Extremity … I will no longer act the part of an Hypocrite … but will publickly own his [­Mohammed’s] noble Principles, and … will propagate the Holy Alcoran through the Western Parts of the Heretical World. (1)

140  Epistolary Satire In his response, Ahmed initially offers as succor only his promise that he will proclaim a holy fast in all his dominions in sympathy for Louis in which he himself will take part—“I do hereby give you my Royal Word, that for three Days to come I will abstain from being Drunk with Claret Wine”—and his verbal encouragement—“Courage, courage, Brother, there’s no fear; Are not you Louis le Grand, and I Seignior le Grand? the Devil’s in’t if we maul not the Rogues now” (2). But in order to call to mind Louis’s informal resumption of the Franco-Ottoman alliance, the author of the broadsheet has Ahmed finally offer Louis gold and ships with which to try to invade again—a triumph vouchsafed once they align themselves with Lucifer, “the Prince of the Air” (2).175 Printed hot on the heels of the battles, this broadsheet offers the very real possibility of another French naval attack (though it did not occur).176 The satirist rendering Louis reiterates narratives about his irreligiousness already in the public sphere: one commenter observes that Louis “enters into Covenant with Turk or Huguenot, Pagans or Infidels, against Catholicks themselves, if it be necessary for promoting his greatness, and to attain to the Monarchy of all Europe,” while the title alone of another pamphlet on Louis, The Most Christian Turk (1690 / M2870A), speaks to the same narrative.177

Conclusion Illustrating the influence of classical satirist Horace on early modern satire, Steven Shelburne writes, “In the English Renaissance, the epistolary ethos [of amity, derived from Horace] is the natural complement of formal satire.”178 “[T]ypically,” Shelburne continues, “the censure falls not on the recipient of the letter but rather on the vicious who are outside the friendly circle. Here the ethos of friendship implied in the epistolary form itself acts as counterpoint to the vitriolic satire.”179 Like Dryden, Shelburne is writing about formal verse satire; and, like Dryden’s theory of satire, Shelburne’s thesis does not pertain to the sorts of epistolary satires I examine in this chapter; these epistolary satires simply do not function by such a process. I do not wish to belabor this fact (or set up Shelburne as a straw man), but it is key to recognize how these particular satires are in fact operating: scorn was not intended to lead to moral improvement and censure was not meant to inspire virtue; such aims were not a dominant—or even a slight—component of first-person epistolary satires printed in the interests of political or religious agendas; they were not meant to be remedial but to be ideological. Yet in some of these publications, quasi-legal remedies are implied: those individuals who did not see imprisonment or other punishment were pilloried in epistolary satire, and the common use of letters as evidence in the early modern courts of law furnished letters in print with a property mimicking the weight of legal proof. Mr. Ferguson’s Letter to His Friends in London, Letter from Paris from Sir George Wakeman to His Friend Sir W. S. in

Epistolary Satire  141 London, and Great News from the King of Poland, for instance, provide such quasi-legal remedies. Despite its application to only a limited number of early modern satires, Shelburne’s argument does elucidate a crucial dimension of early modern epistolarity stemming from classical antecedents. Because friendship “implies for Cicero and his Renaissance inheritors certain notions of personal virtue and of community,” letter writing served as a springboard to celebrating and presenting friendship as a personal and civic ideal.180 As we shall see in the following chapter, a group of mid-seventeenth-century letter writers reflects Shelburne’s claims about the relationship between letter writing and friendship. This small party of letter writers favored confronting the values and principles of their political and religious enemies not by satirizing their adversaries into defeat, but by upholding in-group letter exchange in the face of the forces of dishonesty, incivility, and discord ranging without.

Notes 1 The Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium (1641 / C6153), [A4v]. 2 Andrew McRae, Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 211. 3 First-person point of view is characteristic of these satires except where the author is made to write about himself in the third person as in some stanzas of A Letter Sent by Sir John Suckling from France Deploring His Sad Estate and Flight (1641 / L1591) or in Eikon Brotoloigou, or The Picture of Titus Oates … in a Letter to Himself (1697 / E313-A). 4 Ashley Marshall, for instance, does not examine any satires in letter form before 1700 in her study The Practice of Satire in England, 1658–1770 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013)—although in her study she erases genre in favor of a comprehensive approach to the mode. 5 Dustin Griffin, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994), 28. 6 Thomas Forde, To the Reader, Faenestra in Pectore, or A Century of Familiar Letters in Virtus Rediviva (1660, Oct.T / F1550), [J8]. 7 McRae, 35. 8 Harold Love, English Clandestine Satire, 1660–1702 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 135 (ellipses in source). 9 I follow Griffin’s summary and critique of the history of the criticism on satire. See 14–34 for his summary and evaluation of the modern critical tradition of satire. See also Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in ­England, 1640–1660 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 295. 10 Griffin, 19, 28. 11 Griffin, 31. 12 John Dryden, The Works of John Dryden, eds. H. T. Swedenberg Jr. et al., 20 vols. (Berkeley: University of Berkeley Press, 1956–2000), 4:59, 9. 13 Dryden, 4:60. 14 George A. Test, Satire: Spirit and Art (Tampa: University Press of Florida, 1991), 122; Love, 14–18, especially 17 where he writes that lampoons are “a subset of the wider category of libel.”

142  Epistolary Satire 15 McRae, 211. 16 This pamphlet is also identified by ESTC as B117 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. I quote from B3582. 17 See Alvin Kernan, The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 93. 18 I quote from A1097. 19 Quoted in Sandra Clark, The Elizabethan Pamphleteers: Popular Moralistic Pamphlets, 1580–1640 (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 1983), 23. See also Smith, 298; and Marshall, 42. 20 The National Archives, Kew, STAR CHAMBER, 8/150/4, m. 23. I cover more of these in my “Libelous Letters in Elizabethan and Early Stuart ­England,” Modern Philology 105.3 (Feb. 2008): 475–509. 21 George deForest Lord, ed., Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660–1714, Vol. 1: 1660–1678 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), 348. 22 Elias F. Mengel Jr., ed., Poems on Affairs of State: Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660–1714, Vol. 2: 1678–1681 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 253–56. 23 Love, 123. 24 J. H. Baker, ed., Sources of English Legal History: Private Law to 1750, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 707 (last set of brackets in original). 25 The English Reports, 178 vols. (Edinburgh: William Green & Sons / ­London: Stevens & Sons, 1900–1930), 80:211. 26 Folger Library Manuscript V.a. 133, fol. 67v: “si le partie a q[ue] le letter est escrire ceo publishe, il est son follie, et il defame son mesme.” 27 English Reports, 77:1317. See Schneider, “Libelous Letters,” 479, for more on the phenomenon of self-libeling. 28 George deForest Lord, ed., “Introduction,” Poems on Affairs of State: ­Augustan Satirical Verse, 1660–1714, Vol. 1: 1660–1678 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), xlix. 29 See McRae, 8–9. 30 Kirk Combe, “The New Voice of Political Dissent: The Transition from Complaint to Satire,” in Theorizing Satire: Essays in Literary Criticism, eds. Brian A. Connery and Kirk Combe (New York: St. Martin’s, 1995), 73–74 (73–94). 31 I therefore must disagree with Griffin when he writes that “there is little evidence that a satirist is typically motivated by clearly articulated political principles, or even by what might now be called political ideology” (149; see also 150). See also Marshall: “Griffin’s contention does not hold for all or even most Carolean satires” (108). 32 McRae, 6. 33 Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 281, 284. 34 Lisa Jardine, “Before Clarissa: Erasmus, ‘Letters of Obscure Men,’ and Epistolary Fictions,” in Self-Presentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, eds. Toon Van Houdt et al. (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 387 (385–403). 35 James V. Mehl, “Language, Class, and Mimic Satire in the Characterization of Correspondents in the Epistolae obscurorum virorum,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 25.2 (Summer 1994): 297 (289–305).

Epistolary Satire  143 36 Peter Schäffer, “Letters of Obscure Men,” in The Renaissance and Reformation in Germany: An Introduction, ed. Gerhart Hoffmeister (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1977), 131. 37 Margaret Doody, The Daring Muse: Augustan Poetry Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 34. Doody also writes of the uses of mimicry (34–36, 44) and personae (36) in considering ventriloquism. 38 Doody, 44. See also Harold F. Brooks, “English Verse Satire, 1640–1660: A Prolegomena,” The Seventeenth Century 3.1 (Spring 1988): 23–24 (17–46) for “speech-in-character” satires. 39 Doody, 44. 40 Identified also by ESTC as S6131-A on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as S6131 on Early English Books Online. This pamphlet has been attributed to John Mennes (ESTC), but Timothy Raylor demurs that Mennes was the author (Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy [Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994], 224–25). 41 Entered in the Stationers’ Register July 24 (G. E. Briscoe Eyre and G. R. Rivington, eds., A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708, 3 vols. [London: Privately Printed, 1913–1914], 1:240). Thomas Clayton lists many other anti-Suckling pamphlets: The Works of Sir John Suckling, Vol. 1: The Non-Dramatic Works ­(Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), lxvi, note 2. I quote from S6126A. 42 See Clayton, cxxiv–cxxvii, 307–37, for details on all of the letters in Letters to Divers Eminent Personages. Simon Nicholas Morgan-Russell suggests that Moseley intentionally excluded Suckling’s letters about the Bishops’ Wars (“‘senceless, stigmatick, ballad Balderdash’: The Political Construction of Sir John Suckling as Cavalier Poet” [master’s thesis, Lehigh University, 1991], 42). 43 Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1500–1700 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 255, 259. See Robert Wilcher, The Discontented Cavalier: The Work of Sir John Suckling in Its Social, Religious, Political, and Literary Contexts (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007), 342–44, on Fragmenta Aurea’s political purpose. 44 ODNB, 1:72. 45 David Cressy mentions the manuscript manifestation of such letters: ­England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution, 1620–1642 (Oxford: Oxford ­University Press, 2006), 333. 46 Benjamin Boyce, “News from Hell: Satiric Communications with the Nether World in English Writing of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Publications of the Modern Language Association 58.2 (June 1943): 409, 412 (402–37). See also Clark, 150–59. 47 Falconer Madan offers a publication date of September 15 (Oxford Books: A Bibliography of Printed Works Relating to the University and City of Oxford or Printed or Published There, 3 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895–1931], 2:289). Robert Wilcher, The Writing of Royalism, 1628–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) gives a thorough summary of this fake letter (181–82). 48 “ʍ for Humphrey” is more difficult to render. ʍ is perhaps an abbreviation for a fool (mome) as in Thomas Gataker’s observation, “it grew to a Proverbe to say, M. is his Lot, either of a foole, or of a fellow of no

144  Epistolary Satire worth” (Of the Nature and Use of Lots [1619 / 11670], 62); and Humphrey = Numps = numbskull. 49 This pamphlet was republished in 1642 (M42B) with a title page woodcut of the devil and his bishops. It has been attributed to Richard Overton by Overton’s biographer Marie Gimelfarb-Brack in Liberté, Égalité, ­F raternité, Justice!: La Vie et l’Oeuvre de Richard Overton, Niveleur (Berne: Peter Lang, 1979), 405; though Don M. Wolfe had earlier rejected the attribution in “Unsigned Pamphlets of Richard Overton: 1641–1649,” Huntington Library Quarterly 21.2 (Feb. 1958): 188 (167–201). 50 John Lothrop Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, condensed by ­William Elliot Griffis (New York: Harper, 1898), 823–24. 51 Maija Jansson places the petition under the date of November 18, 1640, though the text itself is dated August 28, 1640 (Maija Jansson, ed., ­Proceedings in the Opening Session of the Long Parliament, House of Commons, 7 vols. [Rochester: Rochester University Press, 2000–2007], 1:179). It appears in the Lords Journal under the date March 18, 1641. Journals of the House of Lords, 42 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1767–1830), 4:188–89, accessed via British History Online, www. british-history.ac.uk/search/series/lords-jrnl (hereafter abbreviated as LJ). 52 The pamphlet has been ascribed to John Taylor (ESTC), but B. S. Capp does not mention the pamphlet in his The World of John Taylor the Water-Poet, 1578–1653 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). The final page of the pamphlet indicates that the letter was translated from Dutch by one George Wolley. 53 As a document as if composed before 1623, however, Satan mentions ­A mbrogio Spinola’s siege of Breda, but it did not occur until 1624–25. 54 David Plant, “The Confederate Assembly of Kilkenny,” BCW Project: ­British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate, 1638–1660, http://bcw-­project. org/church-and-state/confederate-ireland/the-confederate-assembly. 55 Identified also by ESTC as C4636 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. 56 See, for instance, Anchitell Grey, ed., Debates of the House of Commons from 1667 to 1694, 10 vols. (London, 1769), 6:152, 154; Roger L’Estrange, The History of the Plot (1679 / L1258), 9. 57 See also Letter from Father La Chaise … to Father Peters (1688 / L1465), 14–15. In 1641 in Newes from Hell, Rome, and the Inns of Court “the Lordly Bushops, in working the dissolution of the assembly of Parliament, in May last past 1640” (4) were the culprits. 58 Pragmaticus, N/A, N/A (E.988[4]), 5. Thomason inscribed June 20, 1659, on his copy. 59 ODNB, 7:238. Bradshaw’s mother is given the name Sara in the letter, though his mother’s name was Catherine; Bradshaw also had no children, while the letter indicates he has. Richard Lee Bradshaw in God’s Battleaxe: The Life of Lord President John Bradshawe (1603–1659) (Xlibris, 2010) claims that the author of the piece drew the biographical details from a different John Bradshaw (260). 60 Pragmaticus (for King Charles II), 9, June 12–19, 1649 (E.560[19]), [I4v]. 61 A New Bull-Bayting, or A Match Play’d at the Town-Bull of Ely (1649, Aug. 7 T / L2146, O630B), 6 (attributed in ESTC to Richard Overton and John Lilburne; identified also as N587 on University Microfilms International [Early English Books, 1641–1700] and on Early English Books ­Online); Pragmaticus, 42, Jan. 16–30, 1649 (E.540[15]), [Hhh4]. 62 ODNB, 7:238; Handbook for Shropshire and Cheshire (London: John Murray, 1879), 101.

Epistolary Satire  145 63 The Last Will and Testament of John Bradshaw (1659 / L519A), 5. Identified also as B4153 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700) and on Early English Books Online. I quote from B4153. 64 Jason McElligott, “John Crouch: A Royalist Journalist in Cromwellian ­England,” Media History 10.3 (2004): 145 (139–55); see also 146. 65 A few examples of such print letters of nonsense, bawdry, and misogyny: Number 19, Aug. 4–11, 1652 (E.673[17]), 148–49; Number 35, Dec. 1–8, 1652 (E.683[20]), 278; Number 49, Mar. 9–16, 1653 (E.689[25]), 379–80; Number 72, Sept. 7–14, 1653 (E.713[4]), 570–71. 66 Democritus, 34, Nov. 24–Dec. 1, 1652 (E.683[10]), 267. 67 Democritus, 70, Aug. 24–31, 1653 (E.711[20]), 554. 68 Lena Liapi, “‘Loyal Hind,’ ‘The Prince of Thieves’: Crime Pamphlets and Royalist Propaganda in the 1650s” in News in Early Modern Europe: Currents and Connections, eds. Simon F. Davies and Puck Fletcher (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 105 (96–114). Both The French Intelligencer and The Faithful Scout were edited by Daniel Border. 69 Faithful Scout, 68, Apr. 30–May 7, 1652 (E.794[34]), 536. French Intelligencer carried the same story: 25, May 2–9, 1652 (E.663[3]), 187–88. 70 Democritus, 6, May 4–12, 1652 (E.664[3]), 45. 71 Kate Peters, “Patterns of Quaker Authorship, 1652–1656” in The Emergence of Quaker Writing: Dissenting Literature in Seventeenth-Century England, eds. Thomas N. Corns and David Loewenstein (London: Frank Cass, 1995), 12–14 (6–24). 72 Phanatick Intelligencer, 1, N/A (E.1017[42]), 4; inscribed March 21, 1660, by Thomason. 73 ODNB, 26:934. 74 David Plant, “John Hewson,” BCW Project: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate, 1638–1660, http://bcw-project.org/biography/johnhewson. 75 Phanaticus, 2, Mar. 14–21, 1660 (E.1017[30]), 11–12, but the issue is irregularly paginated. 76 ODNB, 26:934; Samuel Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, 11 vols., eds. Robert Latham and William Matthews (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970–1983), 1:28 (brackets in original). 77 ODNB, 26:934. 78 Mercurius Politicus, 592, Oct. 20–27, 1659 (E.771[27]), 827 (mispaginated as 727); David Plant, “The Committee of Safety, 1659,” BCW Project: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate, 1638–1660, http:// bcw-project.org/church-and-state/first-civil-war/committee-of-safety. 79 Hutchinson quoted in Trevor Royle, The British Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1660 (New York: Palgrave, 2004), 749; Pepys, 1:51 (Feb. 11, 1660). 80 Journals of the House of Commons, 13 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1802), 7:765, 800, accessed via British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/search/series/commons-jrnl (henceforth abbreviated as CJ). 81 David Farr, John Lambert, Parliamentary Soldier and Cromwellian ­General, 1619–1684 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), 197; ODNB, 33:389. 82 Farr, 206, 209. 83 Pepys, 1:7 (Jan. 4, 1660). 84 Lord Lambert’s Letter to the … Speaker, 7; Second and a Third Letter from the Lord Lambert, 5; CJ, 7:765, 766. 85 A Letter Sent from General Monck … to … William Lenthall (1660, Jan. 7 T / A863), 6; CJ, 7:804.

146  Epistolary Satire 86 Archibald Johnston, Diary of Sir Archibald Johnston of Wariston, Vol. 3, ed. James D. Ogilvie (Edinburgh: Constable, 1940), 169. 87 Johnston, 164–65 (brackets in original). See also 166, 167, and 172. Indeed, editor Ogilvie remarks in abridging the diary for publication, “The diary for the next few days [January 2–5] is occupied with self-reproaches” (166). 88 Johnston, 174. 89 Johnston, 175 (ellipses in original). 90 CJ, 7:841; Violet A. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane the Younger: A Study in Political and Administrative History (London: Athlone, 1970), 231. 91 Rowe, 231. See Rowe, 212, 218, 223, and 226, for examples of the checkered political relationship of Vane and Hesilrige. 92 Pepys, 1:50. 93 Rowe, 231. 94 David Plant, “Timeline, 1660,” BCW Project: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate, 1638–1660, http://bcw-project.org/timelines/1660. 95 Rowe, 206–7. 96 See David S. Katz, Sabbath and Sectarianism in Seventeenth-Century ­England (Leiden: Brill, 1988), Chapter 3, for Chamberlen. 97 ODNB, 56:876. 98 Pepys, 1:60 (Feb. 19, 1660). 99 Quoted in Rowe, 231. 100 William Harbutt Dawson, Cromwell’s Understudy: The Life and Times of General John Lambert (London: William Hodge, 1938), 387–92. 101 Rowe, 206; David Parnham, Sir Henry Vane, Theologian: A Study in ­Seventeenth-Century Religious and Political Discourse (Cranbury, NJ: ­Associated University Presses, 1997), 14. 102 Farr, 212. 103 Dawson, 390. 104 Pepys, 1:109 (Apr. 15, 1660); 1:115 (Apr. 24, 1660). 105 CJ, 9:530; By the King. A Proclamation Commanding All Persons Being Popish Recusants … (1678, Oct. 30 / C3242); John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: William Heinemann, 1972), 92, 104. 106 The latter pamphlet is also identified by ESTC as C1659 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. I quote from C1659. 107 Sydenham Henry Augustus Hervey, ed., Letter-Books of John Hervey, First Earl of Bristol, 3 vols. (Wells: Ernest Jackson, 1894), 1:103; R. A. Houlbrooke, ed., The Letter Book of John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, Compiled during the Years 1571–5 (Norfolk: Norfolk Record Society, 1974–1975), 78. 108 There were many prison letters printed during the period meant to evoke sympathy. See Schneider, Epistolarity, 188–89, 218–21; and Jerome de Groot, “Prison Writing, Writing Prison during the 1640s and 1650s,” Huntington Library Quarterly 72.2 (June 2009): 193–215. Such letters were also meant to energize community, state spiritual principles, and promote religious change—but they could at the same time level criticism and speak out against abuses. 109 Frances E. Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and ­Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 161. 110 Grey, 8:139. 111 Cresswell’s given name Elizabeth is from Fergus Linnane, London, The Wicked City: A Thousand Years of Vice in the Capital (London: Robson, 2003), 74.

Epistolary Satire  147 12 ODNB, 14:147, 148. 1 113 Melissa M. Mowry, The Bawdy Politic in Stuart England, 1660–1714 ­(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 45. See Mihoko Suzuki, Subordinate Subjects: Gender, the Political Nation, and Literary Form in England, 1588–1688 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 259, for the characterization of Cresswell as whore. 114 ODNB, 14:148. 115 Leona Rostenberg, “Nathaniel Thompson, Catholic Printer and Publisher of the Restoration,” The Library, 5th ser., 10 (1955): 188–89, 191 (186–202). 116 F. H. Blackburne Daniell, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II, Sept. 1680–Dec. 1681 (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1921), 571 with brackets in source (hereafter cited as CSPD Charles II, Sept. 1680–Dec. 1681); James Sutherland, The Restoration Newspaper and Its Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 74. 117 Gerard Maria Peerbooms, Nathaniel Thompson: Tory Printer, Ballad Monger and Propagandist (Nijmegen: The Author, 1983), 71. 118 See Sheila Williams, “The Pope-Burning Processions of 1679, 1680 and 1681,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21.1–2 (Jan.–June 1958): 104–18. 119 The Procession, or The Burning of the Pope in Effigie in Smithfield-Rounds on the 17th of November 1681 (1681 / P3630), 2. 120 See Peerbooms, 69–70, for Thompson’s indictment. 121 Observator in Dialogue, 73, Nov. 21, 1681, recto. 122 Weekly Pacquet of Advice, vol. 3, no. 77, Nov. 25, 1681, 615–16. 123 ODNB, 33:491; George Kitchin, Sir Roger L’Estrange: A Contribution to the History of the Press in the Seventeenth Century (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1913), 266; CSPD Charles II, Sept. 1680–Dec. 1681, 72. 124 ODNB, 33:494; 7:810. 125 Protestant Observator, 2, Nov. 24, 1681, verso. 126 Protestant Observator, 3, Nov. 26, 1681, recto. 127 See also Marshall and her sources (74) on the opacity of some s­ eventeenthcentury satire. 128 Williams, 109. Kitchin annotates this fake letter, 262–64. 129 Kitchin, 260n4; T. B. Howell, comp., Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, 34 vols. (London: R. Bagshaw et al., 1809–1826), vol. 8, col. 595 (hereafter cited as State Trials). 130 Identified also by ESTC as C5226 on University Microfilms International (Early English Books, 1641–1700); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. 131 Observator in Dialogue, 34, July 16, 1681, verso. 132 Harold Weber, Paper Bullets: Print and Kingship under Charles II (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), 187. 133 Weber, 187. 134 Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 6 vols. ­(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1857), 1:74. 135 Luttrell, 1:18; Lois G. Schwoerer, “Law, Liberty, and Jury ‘Ideology’: English Transatlantic Revolutionary Traditions” in Revolutionary Currents: Nation Building in the Transatlantic World, eds. Michael A. Morrison and Melinda S. Zook (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), 42 (35–64).

148  Epistolary Satire 36 Luttrell, 1:74; ODNB, 49:545. 1 137 ODNB, 49:545. 138 The Bellowings of a Wild-Bull, or Scroggs’s Roaring Lamentation for Being Impeached of High-Treason (1680 / B1859), [1]. L’Estrange is made to compare himself to Scroggs thus in Letter Out of Scotland from Mr. R. L. S. to His Friend H. B.: “I think I did more wisely than Justice Scroggs, when I fairly run away” (3). 139 ODNB, 19:366. 140 ODNB, 42:596; 17:15. 141 ODNB, 56:992; Jane Lane [Elaine Kidner Dakers], Titus Oates (London: Andrew Dakers, 1949), 289. 142 See Lane (87, 289) on the association between Waller and Oates. 143 Luttrell, 1:39. 144 Dr. Oates’s Answer to Count Teckly’s Letter (1683 / O28A), verso. 145 Lionel K. J. Glassey, “Shaftesbury and the Exclusion Crisis” in Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683, ed. John Spurr (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 229 (207–32). 146 Observator in Dialogue, 112, Mar. 16, 1682, recto (brackets in source). 147 Allen Macinnes, “The Hidden Commonwealth: Poland–Lithuania and Scottish Political Discourse in the Seventeenth Century” in Citizenship and Identity in a Multinational Commonwealth: Poland–Lithuania in Context, 1550–1772, eds. Karin Friedrich and Barbara M. Pendzich (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 251 (233–60); State Trials, vol. 8, col. 780. 148 ODNB, 13:216. 149 Lane, 109, 135. 150 See Tony Claydon, Europe and the Making of England, 1660–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 172–92; Matthew Birchwood, “News from Vienna: Titus Oates and the True Blue Protestant Turks” in Cultural Encounters between East and West, 1453–1699, eds. Matthew Birchwood and Matthew Dimmock (Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2005), 64–76. 151 F. H. Blackburne Daniell and Francis Bickley, eds., Calendar of State ­Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles II, July–Sept., 1683 ­(London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1934), 351–52; referenced in Lane, 297, but erroneously cited there as appearing in CSPD Charles II, Jan.–June, 1683. 152 Observator, 399, Sept. 6, 1683, recto (brackets in original). 153 See Humberto Garcia, Islam and the English Enlightenment, 1670–1840 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), 45. 154 Lane, 267. 155 Paul Hammond, Figuring Sex between Men from Shakespeare to Rochester (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 159. 156 Garcia (50–51) offers insightful analysis of this pamphlet under its reprinted title Oates New Shams Discovered (O62B). 157 Lane, 292. 158 This publication is tentatively dated by Wing as both 1685 (O62A) and 1688 (O62B). Oates New Shams Discovered was sold by Absalon ­Chamberlain; a total of 12 items in the ESTC were printed for or sold by Chamberlain. Those definitively dated were published between 1684 and 1685. Considering this—and because the addressee, Monmouth, was executed in July 1685—a range of dates between the last quarter of 1683 and mid-1685 seems more likely. 159 The Post Boy indicates it was published on April 24 (307, Apr. 22–24, 1697, verso). Oates also published Eikon Basilike Tetarte (1697 / O40), but this fourth volume is not mentioned by the satirist who composed Eikon ­Brotoloigou and was likely published later in the year. I quote from E313.

Epistolary Satire  149 160 John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, 3 vols., ed. Austin Dobson ­(London: Macmillan, 1906), 3:33. 161 For Mary of Modena as domineering, see Jennifer L. Airey, The Politics of Rape: Sexual Atrocity, Propaganda Wars, and the Restoration (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2012), 80. 162 Airey, 193. 163 For characterizations of James’s lack of masculinity, see D. W. Hayton, “Louis XIV, James II and Ireland,” in Louis XIV Outside In: Images of the Sun King beyond France, 1661–1715, eds. Tony Claydon and CharlesÉdouard Levillain (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), 118 (111–32). 164 See James Daybell, Women Letter-Writers in Tudor England (Oxford: ­Oxford University Press, 2006), 229–64, especially 255. 165 Hayton, 113–14. An anonymous contemporary, N. N., dismisses this ­ballad as a “villanous Piece of Ribaldry” (The Blatant Beast Muzzl’d, or Reflexions on a Late Libel Entituled, The Secret History of the Reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II [1691 / N28]) much like John Bond criticized the lying libels of 1641. 166 Licensed August 18 and 20, 1690, respectively. Baldwin remained a militant Whig printer into the 1690s (Alastair Bellany, The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News Culture and the Overbury Affair, 1603–1660 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 121n210). 167 See Lilian Tate, ed., “Franco–Irish Correspondence in the Archives Nationales, Paris: Dépôt de la Guerre,” Analecta Hibernica 21 (1959): 220, 222 (v–vi, 1–299, 231–40). 168 Pádraig Lenihan, The Last Cavalier: Richard Talbot (1631–91) (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2014). Lenihan, however, does quote a letter from D’Avaux to Louis XIV in which he writes, “it will be a loss for this country [Ireland] and the King [Louis] to whom he [Tyrconnell] is as devoted as the best Frenchman could be” (140; first two sets of brackets in source). 169 Quoted in Brendan O’Buachalla, “Lillibulero: A New Irish Song,” Familia: Ulster Geneological Review 2.7 (1991): 51 (47–59). 170 Licensed September 2, 1690. 171 See Lilian Tate, ed., “Letter-Book of Richard Talbot,” Analecta Hibernica 4 (Oct. 1932): 99–138. 172 Lenihan, 160, 161. 173 Claydon, 158. 174 Pamphlet dated in an unknown hand June 2, 1692; Philip Aubrey, The ­Defeat of James Stuart’s Armada, 1692 (Towata, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1979), 12. 175 On the alliance between France and the Turks, see Claydon, 176. 176 Aubrey, 164. 177 The Politicks of the French King, Lewis the XIV (1689 / P2770A), 96. See also Claydon, 180–82. 178 Steven Shelburne, “The Epistolary Ethos of Formal Satire,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 36.2 (Summer 1994): 136 (135–65). 179 Shelburne, 146. 180 Shelburne, 137.

3 Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections

There is oftentimes a higher Reason to be given for bringing such things as [letters] to light … though written under the secretest Confidence and closest Privacy —Edward Brown, The Letters of the Renowned Father Paul [Sarpi] (1693)1

While most authors of epistolary fiction created singly printed letters to present their ideological points of view, other writers amassed collections of several letters, and shaped by way of these gatherings distinctive perspectives and particular attitudes. Letter collections of all types—those printed posthumously or while the authors lived, single-authored and multiple authored, moral-didactic and familiar—were printed throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for a variety of purposes: pedagogical, controversial, consolatory, exhortatory, homiletic, doctrinal, recreational; and, as far as this chapter is concerned, ideological— collections containing letters and sometimes framing material to offer attitudes on political, religious, and associated topics. There are differences in character, objective, and tone when it comes to distinctions ­between collections printed posthumously or while the authors lived, those single-authored and multiple authored, and moral-didactic and familiar letter collections; yet each of these groups includes collections that were written and published with political or religious aims in mind. For instance, distinct ideological (as opposed to spiritual or consolatory or exhortatory) features can be teased out of Joseph Hall’s Epistles (1608, 1611), a single-author collection of moral-didactic ­letter-essaysHall published while alive. 2 The collections are dedicated to Prince Henry, and the majority of the letters are addressed to individuals of Henry’s court, a court that positioned itself as an especially militant Protestant one. 3 In his lead letter, addressed to recent apostate James Wadsworth, Hall advances stock anti-Catholic polemic to attack ­Wadsworth: “What such goodly beauty saw you in that painted, but ill-­favoured strumpet, that should thus bewitch you so to forget yourself …?”4 Other letters tackle provocative issues as far as Catholicism is

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  151 concerned, some on contemporary controversies. 5 Yet other letters are of more secular orientation advising on court and court conduct; in one to Adam Newton, tutor to Prince Henry, Hall advises Newton to teach Henry “to hate a parasite, as the worst traitor” (6:138), and some of the letters on this topic verge on satire.6 Hall always couches his secular or political commentary in a moral-didactic framework, however, as in a letter titled “Description of a good and faithful courtier”: “I speak boldly: the court is as nigh to heaven as the [anchorite’s] cell” (6:213). Other collections were printed as straightforward evidence of an ­enemy’s treachery and acted as propaganda that way. A late sixteenth-­ century example, a pamphlet that includes letters by many hands, is A Discoverie of the Unnaturall and Traiterous Conspiracie of Scottisch Papists … Wherunto Are Annexed Certaine Intercepted Letters ­Written by Sundrie of That Factioun (Edinburgh, 1593 / 14937; ­London, 1593 / 14938), in which the letters of Catholic conspirators were published to castigate them in lieu of legal proceedings—though others saw the publication as transparently anti-Catholic and as a means to implement tougher measures against Catholics.7 In the following century, Charles I’s letter cabinet was captured during the battle at Naseby, forming the basis for the collection The Kings Cabinet Opened (1645, July 14T / C2358), the most notorious example of letters intended to provide ­documentation of an enemy’s perfidy, and vehemently contested as faked, doctored, decontextualized, and misinterpreted upon their publication. Royalists offered their own intercepted-letter propaganda, publications such as Certaine Letters Sent from Sir John Hotham, Young Hotham … and Others, Intercepted and Brought to Court to His ­M ajestie, April 16 (Oxford, 1643 / H2903) and Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle, the Earle of Lanerick, Lord Warriston, and ­Others (Oxford, 1645, Apr. 24T / A3661). Compilers of some seventeenth-century collections fashioned secular figures as martyrs for their political causes. A few years after the 1649 execution of royalist Arthur, 1st Baron Capel of Hadham, Certain Letters Written to Severall Persons (1654 / C465) appeared. Offering no framing material—or even mention of Capel’s name—the pamphlet nevertheless contains letters that demonstrate a clear political perspective marked from the first sentence of the first letter dated 1648: “The sad and desperate condition his Majestyes sacred person is in, hath filled me with much greater anxiety and disquietness, then hath been usuall to me since these unhappy times” (3), the reader of course knowing full well what occurred the following year. Capel designates his political and religious perspectives as identical: he states in one letter that he is writing “as a Christian, [and] as a Subject: For I believe both dutyes are inseparably conjoyned” (3). Capel’s comments just before Charles I’s execution warn of the chaos to follow: it is easier “to discompose and disorder a State, then … [to] compose and rule it” (15), Capel writes, and attacks

152  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections “these prodigious Regicides … Monsters not contained within the terms and limits of humane nature” (16–17)—potent denunciation in 1654.8 Royalist solider John Penruddock, leader of the 1655 Penruddock Rebellion in Salisbury, was memorialized in The Triall of the Honourable Colonel John Penruddock … and the Last Letter He Received from His Vertuous Lady with His Answer (1655, July 2T / P1431), in whose farewell letter to his wife Penruddock writes, “I am now lifting my self under the conduct of my Sovereign, and an Army of Martyrs, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against” (9), portraying himself as religious and political martyr in one. Yet other collections were printed to retaliate against a political ­adversary, a species of letter collection I call “revenge” letter collections.9 In his dedicatory letter to Coll. Henry Marten’s Familiar Letters to His Lady of Delight (Oxford, 1662 / M819) Edmund Gayton, writing as Edmundus de Speciosâ Villâ, fulminates against imprisoned regicide Henry Marten, These Letters of Yours to Yours [i.e., to your mistress Mary Ward] had not seene the world, if you your self had not given just ­occasion for the incivilitie. There was a time (I would it had never been) when you voted and principally caused the Sacred Letters of your Soveraign, and his Queen (the Cabinet as it was stiled) to be made publick … but now you see the times of retaliation are come: I am very glad they are come, that such rebellious and inhumane persons may be in their kinde requited. ([A3]) Rebels No Saints, or A Collection of the Speeches, Private Passages, ­L etters, and Prayers of Those Persons Lately Executed (1661 / S204-aA) contains several letters of regicide John Cook written from prison to a friend, to his wife, and to his daughter. “If Treason ever wore a Cloak you may see it here now palliated to the life,” the ­editor W. S. (William Sanderson) observes scornfully.10 “I am sorry Pearls of Eloquence … should prove destructive to the owners” (83). Only Cook’s epistolary style is held up as admirable; Cook’s political principles by contrast are condemned as abhorrent. The contents of ­R ebels No Saints may in fact be spurious; but as Matthew Jenkinson puts it, “this did not n ­ ecessarily deprive them of their ideological power”—a point I have made elsewhere in this study where ideological determinations overwhelm questions of authenticity.11 Letters John Milton wrote while he was Latin secretary to Oliver Cromwell also may have been disingenuously framed as a “revenge” letter publication. Milton initially sought to print these state letters along with some familiar letters while he was alive but was hindered from publishing the state letters by the government.12 His familiar letters

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  153 were then printed alone in 1674 while Milton was alive. Two years after Milton’s death, Literae Pseudo-Senatus Anglicani, Cromwellii, ­Reliquorumque Perduellium Nomine ac Jussu Conscriptae a J­ oanne Miltono (Amsterdam, 1676 / M2128) was surreptitiously printed abroad; the collection offers vituperation of Milton’s person and politics, his Latin epistolary style marking the only redeeming feature of the collected letters, as framed by the preface.13 Secretary of State Joseph Williamson believed the letters were dangerous, even though the latest letter was 17 years old in 1676. Leoline Jenkins agreed with ­Williamson writing to him, “there is a New Genera[ti]on since come up. and those J am affrayd of: those that Relish M. Hobbes his maximes for good Politiques very well prepard to swallow the impudent Assertions of Milton for undoubted History.”14 In Nicholas von Maltzahn’s words, ­“[Licenser Roger] L’Estrange’s emphatic proscription of the State Letters shows a graver concern with more immediately political texts.”15 Of course, we lack any perception of how Milton would have framed his state letters, if at all; but it is certain that any prefatory material would have differed from that heading Literae Pseudo-Senatus ­Anglicani. Nonetheless, the posthumous printing of Milton’s state letters was seen as politically hazardous, as the opinions of Williamson, Jenkins, and L’Estrange indicate. By contrast, the letters of state that constitute Letters Written by Sir W[illiam] Temple (2 vols., 1700 / T641) are introduced by Jonathan Swift, who prepared the collection for the press, as a valuable national resource. The majority of the letters were over 30 years old at the time of printing, spanning the first Dutch War of 1665 to the second Dutch War of 1672. Swift makes clear that the historical transactions he is revealing in the letters have had a significant impact on present political circumstances; as he writes in preface, “the Matters contained in them, were the Ground and Foundation, whereon all the Wars and Invasions, as well as all the Negotiations and Treaties of Peace in Christendom, [that] have since been raised” (Publisher’s Epistle, 1:A3v) and concludes that printing these letters “could not at present do a greater Service to my Countrey” (Publisher’s Epistle, 1:[A4]). I give only a sketch of the myriad ways in which letter collections were utilized as vehicles of ideological persuasion and propaganda, not only because I have examined several of these in a prior study, but also because I wish to isolate in this chapter a particular subset of ­single-author familiar letters printed, or intended to be printed, while the authors lived.16 Surprisingly, sizable collections of familiar letters by English writers only began to see publication beginning in 1645 and until 1664.17 In the years following the Restoration, one would have expected the number of familiar letter collections printed while their authors lived to have increased, as printing generally increased in numbers as the seventeenth century advanced—or at least to have seen regular publication of

154  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections familiar letter collections. Yet to the end of the century, English writers rarely printed their familiar letters in single-author collections.18 As far as printed familiar letters by English writers are concerned, we are therefore left to conclude that something unique was occurring between 1645 and 1664, during the civil wars, and the commonwealth, protectorate, and early restoration years.

The Four Publications James Howell’s Epistolae Ho-Elianae: Familiar Letters Domestic and Forren, first published in 1645 (July 2T / H3071)—with subsequent volumes appearing in 1647, 1650, and 1655—was the fundamental progenitor of those that followed. Thomas Forde, who published his Faenestra in Pectore, or A Century of Familiar Letters in 1660, had read Howell’s letters, as evident in a reference on page 89 of Faenestra where Forde mentions Howell in the context of printed letters.19 The extended ­title given to Robert Loveday’s letters—Loveday’s Letters Domestick and Forrein … in Subjects Philosophicall, Historicall & Morall (1659, AprilT / L3225)—was likely to model them after Howell’s similarly subtitled Familiar Letters Domestic and Forren: Divided into Six Sections Partly Historicall, Politicall, Philosophicall; while Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, in her CCXI Sociable Letters (1664 / N872), also took Howell as a basic type. 20 Howell, Forde, Loveday, and Cavendish provide in their letter collections an answer to the question, what do familiar letters mean in these uncivil, unstable, dangerous, deceitful, and corrupt times? The familiar letter was employed in Howell’s Epistolae Ho-Elianae and Forde’s Faenestra in Pectore—and to a lesser extent in Loveday’s Letters and Cavendish’s Sociable Letters—precisely to demonstrate many of the cultural values that for royalists were absent from the civil war, commonwealth, and protectorate periods. Among these values are civility, sincerity, ­intimacy, and stability, all of which are embodied in an inclusive perception of friendship as constructed in these collections. Observations on the cultural degeneration caused by the civil wars and persisting through the commonwealth and ­protectorate periods were of course recurrent in royalist writings of the period; but in their letter collections Howell, Forde, Loveday, and Cavendish analyze these cultural conditions as a species of loyalist critique and maneuver their letters to act collectively as a bulwark against such ­degeneration. These writers indeed often demonstrate in their letters a marked self-consciousness of the epistolary form—that is, a sense of letters’ meta-­epistolarity— that serves to focalize the cultural purpose and symbolic value of letters and letter writing during these years. D ­ iana Barnes points out that “Letter writing became an important site for imagining royalism during the ­republican period.”21 Simply stated, these four writers in publishing their familiar letter collections during these years attempted to code the very genre of the familiar letter as royalist.

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  155 All four of the collections I examine were published (or were ­intended to be published) while the authors were alive; these writers were consciously and purposefully attempting to intervene in political discourse.22 Howell’s 1645 Epistolae consists of 238 undated letters. The final Epistolae contains 392 letters, all of which offer dates, including dates inserted back into the letters in the first volume—although the dates do not always accord with the events described. 23 Howell also calls attention to the prestigious coteries within which he is writing, and addresses letters to Ben Jonson; Edward Herbert; James Ussher; ­Kenelm Digby; George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham; and Charles I. Forde’s Faenestra consists of 102 undated and commonly much briefer letters written between 1642 and the late 1650s, and his circle of correspondents, with the exception of Thomas Fuller, is far humbler than Howell’s. 24 Robert Loveday’s Letters, which the author intended for publication before he died but which was ultimately published posthumously (Loveday died in 1656), consists of 150 undated familiar letters, composed during the 1640s and 1650s, written to family and friends, among them royalists John Pettus and Thomas Browne. 25 Cavendish’s Sociable Letters is comprised of over 200 undated familiar letters and letter-essays composed primarily during the 1650s when the duke and duchess were exiled in Antwerp, and which Cavendish intended to publish in the late 1650s. 26 Most of them are addressed to an unnamed fictional female correspondent, though some of them had circulated, sent to friends and relatives, while some contain semi-autobiographical detail. 27 In this chapter, I will focus more closely on Howell’s Epistolae and Forde’s Faenestra. I do not detect the same measure of ideological force in the collections of Loveday and Cavendish, although there is clearly a royalist predisposition in these two publications. 28 Both Loveday and Cavendish ­fundamentally support a royalist program and offer a generally conservative sociopolitical perspective in their letters. I believe these generalizations are fair ones, even though there are elements in the letters of Cavendish that do not fit comfortably into orthodox royalist ideology. 29 Furthermore, I do not wish to reduce Cavendish’s collection to suggest it is only a statement of political attitudes. ­Nevertheless, as Barnes asserts, Cavendish’s letters serve as “an intervention in the royalist masculine tradition of … printed letters”—one which had principal foundation in royalist ­political ­critique considering Howell’s influential collection.30 Cavendish’s letters, indeed, demonstrate many of the same traits of the ­loyalist as Howell’s and Forde’s, but she pointedly offers an exchange of letters between women, outlining therefore a distinctly female royalist perception. Maren-Sofie Røstvig and Earl Miner have written at length of the character of royalist literature of the civil war and interregnum periods, and Miner has proposed the “cavalier mode” to comprehend the literature of the time; elements of both of these scholars’ work have since been interrogated by, among others, Raymond Anselment and

156  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections James Loxley.31 Like Anselment and Loxley, I find the designation of a “mode” troublesome in delineating comprehensively the royalist literary project; the supposed disengagement of the retired royalist seems equally ­dubious. Seen in the context of other royalist literature of the civil war, commonwealth, and protectorate periods, printed familiar letter collections work as compelling evidence of sociopolitical bonds and demonstrate the enduring strength and vitalizing power of loyalist interconnectedness. Because these are fashioned as private letters that foreground friendship, resilience, and stoicism, the letters may appear as if disengaged from political participation; yet the authors of the letter collections not only engage the paradoxical nature of a private letter printed for political purposes, but also position their letters to insist on the efficacy and value of loyalist letter writing. Framed as if originating in manuscript circulation (and many may have indeed originated in this context), the letters of these four writers serve as both literal and symbolic engagement within a network of committed loyalists in solidarity and in opposition to republican hegemony. The strategy exploited by these four letter writers in literary form is something along the lines of what royalist resistance groups such as the Sealed Knot were ­accomplishing to assure that their “secret correspondence might be carried on” in order to combat republican rule.32 In this sense, then, even familiar letter writing among l­oyalists becomes a species of oppositional writing, though framed as a private correspondence among friends (where privacy is maneuvered as a rhetorical strategy) whose letters do not state their correspondents’ resistance or protest directly—which, of course, could result in a loyalist writer’s imprisonment or execution. Emma Rees, writing of Sociable Letters, argues that “Politics and domestic events of the 1650s are commented upon but not … directly engaged with.”33 Yet if Cavendish’s letters were written during the 1650s and were meant to be published in the late 1650s, Cavendish indeed demonstrated an engagement with political culture—albeit at the enforced distance of exile—since the very inscription of royalism at the time could be considered an act of contestation. As for Howell, his engagement is unmistakably offered in his bold dedication of the 1645 Epistolae to King Charles. Furthermore, in contrast to poetry (which is the chief focus of the work of Røstvig, Miner, Anselment, and Loxley) letters possessed a distinct cultural meaning in the early modern period, marked in the obvious yet crucial fact that letters, of any other genre, were most closely associated with friendship. These letters were indeed familiar letters. 34 Letters, moreover, possessed a characteristic pragmatic purpose compared to ­poetry: letters were common vehicles of interpersonal communication, were routinely used to transmit news, and were customary bearers of emotion in lieu of face-to-face contact. In addition, these are collections of letters: these four letter writers gathered their letters ­together to ­accomplish their ideological goals in a manner different

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  157 from those singly printed “letter to a friend” sort, whose authors were often more transparent in their persuasive or propagandistic motives— at least it was the rhetorical drive of Howell, Forde, Loveday, and ­Cavendish to set their collections apart from pamphlet-letters by fashioning them to contain missives that appear to be simply neutral vehicles of communication. This appearance is precisely the value of exploiting the familiar letter for ideological purposes: it does not seem at first glance to be deliberately propagandistic. Exploiting customs of letter writing allowed these writers to construct their collections in specific ways. For example, dating (or not dating) letters is used for persuasive purposes in these printed collections. Even though some of Howell’s letters likely circulated, deliberately dating or even antedating them to appear contemporaneous (rather than belated) in what they reported provides persuasiveness to the criticism. When dates appeared in the second 1650 edition of Howell’s Epistolae, “the incongruities were far too obvious to be mistakes,” observes Annabel Patterson, “[and] should have alerted his readers to … look closer.”35 At the same time, neither Forde nor Cavendish includes dates at the head or foot of his or her letters, while dates were shorn by the editor of Loveday’s letters upon publication. Omitting dates allows for a latitude and fluidity that could be modulated for persuasive purposes, as for instance when Forde, in his fundamentally chronologically arranged collection, moves a letter datable to 1646–47 to the late 1650s. The loyalist writers composing these collections share a set of narratives defining the rebels who fomented the civil war, who executed the king, and who formed a commonwealth government, offering a reaction to social, religious, and political events. Yet they also offer precise counternarratives that present a path to alternative possibilities; in their critique of the civil wars, Commonwealth, and Protectorate as a degeneration of civil ­society, these letter writers advance a corrective in demonstrating how loyalist ­familiar letter writing counteracts this deterioration with civil intercourse.

Friendship Both Howell and Forde pointedly include the adjective “familiar” in subtitling their letter collections, and Cavendish uses the comparable term “sociable.” A commonplace conceivably, considering the n ­ umerous collections of classical and humanist letters that had been published in Europe since the inception of print, the designation familiar nevertheless possesses distinctive meaning when seen in the context of the civil wars, Commonwealth, and Protectorate. In other words, although there is nothing novel about familiar letters containing references to and ­emphasizing friendship, accentuating it in print during the 1640s and 1650s—in light of the deterioration of various social bonds that the civil wars had set in motion—was precisely the point, for the meaning

158  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections of friendship constitutes the foundational narrative through which many loyalists defined their social, political, and religious positions. 36 Friendship, all but decayed in the present cultural circumstances, is ­persistently highlighted in these writers’ collections of letters to validate this narrative.37 Howell deliberately identifies friendship in terms of both personal and national value in his collection. To Thomas Prichard he writes, Friendship is the great Chain of human Society, and intercourse of Letters is one of the chiefest links of that Chain: you know this as well as I; therefore I pray let our Friendship, let our Love, that ­nationality of British Love … be still strengthened. 38 The fifth letter in the 1645 Epistolae, addressed to Daniel Caldwell while Howell was abroad, attunes the reader early in the collection to the ­consequence of friendship and the necessity of maintaining it in separation: We are now far asunder, for no less than a Sea severs us …. Distance sometimes endears Friendship, and Absence sweetneth it; it much enhanceth the value of it, and makes it more precious. Let this be verify’d in us; let that Love which formerly us’d to be nourish’d by personal communication and the Lips, be now fed by Letters … [for] they have a kind of Art like Embraces to mingle Souls. (1:27–28) Howell writes likewise to Richard Altham: “Love is the Marrow of Friendship, and Letters are the Elixir of Love” (1:44). Daniel Woolf is correct in claiming that “While he acknowledged the necessity of flexibility, Howell paradoxically regarded personal ties such as those of amicitia, the ‘religion of friendship,’ as inviolable.”39 In the later volumes of Epistolae Howell continues to underscore the value of friendship. Perhaps Forde, in his shorter collection, emphasizes friendship even more. “I am so ambitious of continuing our ancient friendship, almost as old as our selves,” Forde writes to R. R., “that I cannot omit the least occasion, that may increase or preserve it” (14).40 Like Howell, Forde ties friendship to nation; referring to friendship Forde writes to Edward Barwick that Forde’s letter has “aimed onely at a supplying you with what (I conceive) your Countrey is defective in” (30). More ­often, Forde mourns the loss of friendship in so degenerate a time: “I think the ­Publique Faith has devoured all fidelity, and the Sword cut that (supposed) indissoluble knot of friendship, cancell’d the Bond of all ­Obligations,” (31) he writes to R. R. Friendship “is a term used by all, understood by few, but practised by none, that I can find” (44), Forde

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  159 laments to J. W.; and encourages Barwick “let the world see, there is yet living that flame of antique friendship, which the Ancients boast, and we despair of” (34). Forde’s letters as he characterizes them to R. R. are more proud of the name of Friend, and, carrying that stamp, they presume to be currant, though they be but brass. Not that I intend to make my private Letters publique, but onely to advance a communitie in friendship. (89) Forde’s desire to exemplify a “communitie in friendship” by way of his letters is also laid out in his preface to Faenestra: his aim in publishing his personal letters is to highlight “friendship; which is the soul of ­humane Societie” ([J8v]). Many statements of friendship also occur throughout Loveday’s ­L etters and Cavendish’s Sociable Letters. Loveday writes to his brother ­A nthony, “the aimes of amity are long enough to reach a true friend at the greatest distance” (10). Loveday elsewhere ties the expression of friendship specifically to letters in writing to his brother, Give me leave to begin my Letter with what I shall never make an end of, so long as I can hold a pen in my hand, or a heart in my breast: I meane my thankes for those bewitching proofes of an entire Love, which you lately made me receive; (35) and also in writing, What you are pleased to miscall extravagancies of your Pen, are better construed by him that receives them, who never reads these ­welcome repetitions and confirmations of your amity, but …  he boldly concludes himself happy in spite of all the affronts of Fortune. (166) Like Forde and Howell, Loveday sees friendship in the context of community: “If this world be well scann’d, there is nothing valuable in it but a true Friend: Community is not only the hinge of the Universe, but the signet of every single delight” (133). Cavendish likewise stresses throughout her letters the warm friendship that exists between her royalist correspondents. Letter 100, however, serves as a veritable dissertation on the subject. It ends, True, Undissolving Friendships are made by Faith, Love, Trust, Gratitude, Fortitude, and Honour …. Such a Friendship, Madam, is

160  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections betwixt You and Me, and True Friends have an Undoubted Belief of each others Love and Fidelity, wherefore it is but civil Ceremony to tell you, I am, Madam, Your faithful Friend and humble Servant. (108–9)

Civility Friendship serves as an anchor to which associated concepts in these collections are tied. Foremost among these is civility, a condition absent during the Commonwealth, Protectorate, and the “uncivill civill Warre” (Courteous Reader, [A7v]) as Forde puts it in the preface to his The Times Anatomiz’d in Severall Characters (1647 / F1518). The lack of civility during the civil war, commonwealth, and protectorate years was a cultural narrative these letter writers activate to condemn their ideological enemies; the need for fundamental cultural civility is therefore foregrounded by all of these letter writers in letters to likeminded friends and associates; and the civility evidenced particularly in letter exchange—in order to retain a sense of social propriety in the face of ­cultural erosion—figures among the most crucial ideals in the collections. Several of the letters in Howell’s 1645 Epistolae and in Forde’s Faenestra demonstrate, first, a sense of general civil decline. Howell writes in a letter to Edward Savage (in a later edition dated December 1, 1644), I am no statue, but I must resent the calamities of the time, and the desperate case of this Nation, who seem to have fallen quite from the very faculty of reason, and to be possess’d with a pure ­Lycanthropy, with a wolvish kind of disposition to tear one another in this manner. (1:370–71) To Brevis Thelwall he writes, “God Almighty amend the times, and compose these woful divisions, which menace nothing but public ruin” (1:357). Forde likewise criticizes the cultural decline in his collection. In the first letter in the collection, dating from 1642, Forde refers to the ­ isorder. king and queen’s departure from London and to the consequent d He mentions elsewhere Jean Bodin’s opinion of “Englishmen barbarous for their Civil Wars” (149), and agrees “we have no worse enemies than our selves, as if we had conspired our own ruine: For Plutarch calls the ardent desire of the Graecians to make Civil Wars in Greece, a Conspiracie against themselves” (150).41 Forde writes to T. C. during the latter years of the Protectorate, “Our factions, fractions, and lawless liberty, render us like the poor Bactr[i]ans, of whom is it said, that they are Sine Fide, sine Rege, sine Lege” (147).

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  161 Loveday and Cavendish write likewise. To his brother Loveday states, “too many … not scrupling to crack the chaine of Nature, this Iron age hath shown us” (24); and to another correspondent that “Enmity has domineered so long, that amity is almost grown out of countenance and fashion” (101), wondering how long “these uncivill wars” will last, “how soon the Chirurgery of Heaven will drop balm into our wounds” (98, 99 [99 mispaginated as 97]). Cavendish’s correspondent states, different Opinions in Religion and Laws in a Commonwealth, cause Cruel Civil Wars, making Factions and Parties, with Disputations and Arguments, and nothing will decide the Quarrel but Blood and Death, nor end the War, but Destruction of the Whole, or Conquering Victory of the one Party over the other, whereof the late Wars in this Country are a woful Example.42 (53) Cavendish, however, diverges from the male letter writers insofar as she is a woman commenting on traditionally male concerns. As her correspondent writes, “War is not a Subject proper for our Sex to discourse of,” yet she also recognizes that “in the Ruines of War we suffer Equally with Men” (97). Indeed, Cavendish reflects on the relationship between gender and war in other letters, such as Letter 185, where her correspondent suggests that women suffer even more than men during wartime: The War is likely to be Continued, and I am Sorry for the sake of our Sex, not only that Women are Shiftless in time of Misery, as in Misfortunes, but that they live in Torment, not in their Bodies, but in that which is far Worse, in their Minds, for Fear is the Torment of the Mind.43 (196) That civil war destroys is explicitly tied to the ruin of friendship and kinship bonds in another letter: that a Civil War doth not only Abolish Laws, Dissolve Government, and Destroy the Plenty of a Kingdom, but it doth Unknit the Knot of Friendship, and Dissolve Natural Affections, for in Civil War, Brothers against Brothers, Fathers against Sons, and Sons against Fathers, become Enemies, and Spill each others Blood. (127–28) Constant letter exchange, however, serves as a stronghold against civil disintegration. Howell notes to John Price that “Among the I­ talians and Spaniards, ‘tis held one of the greatest solecisms that can be in good manners, not to answer a Letter with like civility” (2:412). ­Howell writes elsewhere to one Dr. Day, “I have many sorts of Civilities to

162  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections thank you for, but amongst the rest … for that delightful fit of Society and conference of Notes we had lately” (2:528). Forde similarly upholds the primacy of letter exchange as a mainstay of civility in uncivil times. Forde’s response to T. J.’s letter attempts “to acquit the least part of that debt your civilitie hath involved me in” (102). Forde writes to R. R., “Your offer to continue this Literal correspondence, I willingly accept, and was never so ill bred as to neglect such a benefit, when profered” (4). Loveday writes to Mr. H., I have yours [i.e., your letter], wherein you have proved your self a double deserver; first, in shewing friendly kindnesse in doing courtesies, and then a rare modesty in disclaiming their acknowledgement: a disposition seldom known in such an age as this. (37) For Cavendish, civility is demonstrated by social visits: “to receive their Visits, and then not Entertain them Handsomly, Civilly, Courteously … is neither fit for Persons of Quality to do to any Company” (56). When friends are separated, letter exchange, as Cavendish states in the preface to her collection, is not only their [the two correspondents’] Chief Delight and Pastime, but their Tye in Friendship, to Discourse by Letters, as they would do if they were Personally together, so that these Letters are an ­I mitation of a Personal Visitation and Conversation. (8–9) This attitude is taken up by Cavendish’s correspondent in the first letter of the collection: “You were pleas’d to desire, that, since we cannot converse Personally, we should converse by Letters, so as if we were speaking to each other” (13).44 These examples, besides accentuating the need for preserving civility, demonstrate letter exchange as a practice that maintains the customs of courtesy and good manners. Anna Bryson observes that “Basic civility of manners … given the larger connotations of the word ‘civility’ was strongly connected in the seventeenth-century mind with the overall order and harmony of society.”45 Royalists indeed seemed to fear that the various radical religious sects of the period were disregarding civility and manners as a result of their rebellious militancy.46

Sincerity, Transparency, and Intimacy Besides civility, sincerity and transparency are among the other vital components of familiar correspondence. These letter writers therefore underscore these values in their collections, for inscribing them serves

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  163 to counteract the deceptions and obfuscations of political connivance. One of Howell’s principal drives in his letters is indeed establishing ­sincerity.47 Forde’s term for sincerity is “reality,” as when he writes to J. H., “Complements suit not the reality of my intentions” (79); and in stating to R. H., “I do always intend too much reality, to be beholding to a Complement” (157). However, Forde and Howell both use the classical and humanist trope of letter as mirror or window as the central means by which they construct sincerity and transparency.48 Howell writes to his brother, “est instar Speculi mea litera, per quod / Vivida fraterni cordis imago nitet [My letter is like a mirror, through which a vivid image of his brother shines]” (1:68). A similar sentiment is declared also to Richard Altham: your letters “clearly set forth the notions of your mind, and the motions of your soul, with the strength of your imagination,” Howell writes, “so I know you as well inwardly by your lines”; Howell concludes the letter, “besides my Letters, I wish there were a ­Crystal-casement in my Breast, thro’ which you might behold the motions of my Heart” (1:224).49 The Latin title of Forde’s collection, Faenestra in Pectore, of course reiterates this idea, and his letters also commonly employ the trope of letter as mirror. He writes to C. F., “it lies in your power only, to make those poor papers a true glass … in a reflection of my own face” (51). All of his letters to R. R., Forde concludes, “are no other than pieces; yet, as in the several pieces of a broken ­Looking-glass, you shall in every one see the perfect reflection of / Sir, yours in all Offices / of Friendship, / T. F.” (89). For Loveday, transparency is imaged in his belief that letters demonstrate one’s “naked thoughts” (3, 8). In order to create compelling ideological standpoints, these letter writers code sincerity and transparency, both of which assume a distinctive meaning when printed, persuading a reader of the letters of the veracity of the contents therein. Closely associated with sincerity and transparency is confidential ­i ntimacy, as well as a host of related personal and epistolary ideals— in particular honesty, trust, and secrecy. These writers also incorporate meta-epistolary references into their letters to indicate how letters ­sustain such a bond. Often these meta-epistolary references are, like the letter-as-mirror trope, epistolary commonplaces. That letters serve imaginatively to make the absent individual present is another such commonplace. Forde writes to J. A., in letters “do I talk with thee, now absent” (77). Howell activates the fantasy of instant communication to enhance intimacy and insinuate secrecy in a letter to Dan Caldwell: “Could Letters fly with the same Wings as Love useth to do, and cut the Air with the like swiftness of motion, this Letter of mine should work a Miracle, and be with you in an instant” (1:74). Most of these letter writers also exploit the image of letter exchange as a meeting of souls. Howell writes to Francis Mansell, “let our Souls meet sometimes by intercourse of Letters” (1:22). Forde likewise wishes J. W. “To

164  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections lay aside all terms of distance, that we may close, and mingle soules in the flame of friendship” (47); and to Barwick writes, “Let me onely affirm, that though our bodies are severed, our souls still meet” (30). Cavendish’s distinctive gesture to the intimacy of letter exchange is manifested in the first letter of Sociable Letters: I am never better pleased, than when I am reading your Letters, and when I am writing Letters to you …. the truth is, my mind and thoughts live alwayes with you, although my person is at distance from you; insomuch, as, if Souls die not as Bodies do, my Soul will attend you when my Body lies in the grave; and when we are both dead, we may hope to have a Conversation of Souls. (13) That letters kindle friendship is another somewhat conventional image: “Fire,” Howell writes to A. S., is the common Emblem of Love; but without any disparagement to so noble a Passion, methinks it might be compar’d also to ­Tinder, and Letters are the properest matter whereof to make this Tinder: Letters again are the fittest to kindle, and re-accend this Tinder. 50 (1:206) Forde writes in kind to Edward Howes: a letter “makes the enjoyers thereof flame without consuming” (92). Cavendish’s correspondent writes similarly: the Cold is so Furious, as it doth not only Freez the Ink in the Standish, but in the Pen I am writing with, so that I am but a Cold Writer, nay, the very Thoughts seem to be Frozen in my Brain, for they move very Slowly, as if they were Stupified, only my Love to your Ladiship keeps Warm in my Heart; indeed, your Love doth help to maintain the Fire of Life. (201) These are not simply empty epistolary commonplaces; because these ­ eta-epistolary references accumulate in a given letter w m ­ riter’s ­collection, their aggregate effect is to create a narrative of communion and connectedness to define themselves together with their ­fellow loyalists. Indeed, gestures to familiar intimacy and interpersonal connection extend well beyond conventional commonplaces in creatively applied meta-epistolary images, evident most in Howell’s and Forde’s letters— although Cavendish constructs unique meta-epistolary images at times, such as her correspondent’s statement that

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  165 since I am neither Factious, Busie, Inquisitive, nor Active, my ­L etters will be … like Paper that is only fill’d with Cifres, without any ­Figures; But although my Letters may be as Cifres, yet you, to whom I write, are the Chief Figure in my Thoughts, which Expresses Thousands. (183) Forde imagines a distinctive illustration of letter exchange when he writes to J. H., “Seeing once a Weaver at work, I observed, that by c­ asting his shuttle from one side to the other, he finish’d his web: Therein I saw a lively Embleme of friends correspondencie by letters” (75 [mispaginated as 77]), in order to express an integrated and integral connection. Forde observes elsewhere to J. W., I have read of a place called the Hall of Gyants, in Mantua, which hath this strange and unusual Art, that how low soever one speak, at the Corners ‘tis intelligible to be heard, whilst those in the Midst hear nothing. Me thinks, it fitly resembles our intercourse by Letters. (63) Here Forde expresses how communication by letter, although transmitted through great distances, can still remain secret—secrecy, of course, a condition necessary to preserve during perilous times. Howell uses a similar image in writing to Endymion Porter: “Let our Letters be as Echoes, let them bound back and make mutual repercussions” (2:514), in order to represent reciprocity, to imagine the fidelity of oral response, and to express like-mindedness.51 Elsewhere Howell explains to John Smith that This deep Ford of my affection and gratitude to you, I intend to cut out hereafter into small currents (I mean into Letters), that the course of it may be heard, tho’ it make but a small bubbling noise, as also that the clearness of it may appear more visible. (1:235) Howell, referring to Hugh Penry’s prior letter, writes back, it had such a Virtue that it begat new Motions in me, like the ­Loadstone, which by its attractive occult Quality moves the dull Body of Iron, and makes it active; so dull was I then, and such a magnetic Property your Letter had to quicken me. (1:318) Forde employs the magnet image as well to describe the effect of Edward Howes’s letter: “Your last Letter I met on the way, as drawn thither

166  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections perhaps by Sympathy, like the Magnetick steel, to meet her loved ­ oadstone” (92). Both letter writers image mutuality of affection and L natural, sympathetic reaction. That letters are the lifeblood of friendship is illustrated in Forde’s comment to C. A.: “Me thinks, this c­ onstant correspondence fitly answers to that deservedly applauded notion of the Circulation of the Blood” (103). In more expansive fashion, after referring to two palm trees growing on opposite sides of a river yet ­intertwining their fronds, Forde writes to B. R., “not withstanding the distance of place, our bodies are planted in, maugre all opposition, we may entwine our branches (Letters I mean) neither (I hope) shall any envious ­Catterpiller (or false friend) eat away those leaves” (9–10). These meta-epistolary images contribute to the narrative that loyalist letter writers are preserving connection, intimacy, and trust. The last example makes explicit indeed that connection, intimacy, and trust were relentlessly under threat as the civil wars raged and (for royalists) during the commonwealth and protectorate periods, because long-established social bonds had been broken and assurance of one’s friends (in both the personal and political senses of the term) was called into question. Familiar letters, however, safeguard these ideals principally in the face of unwelcome, dishonest, or destructive entities. By accentuating the value of letter exchange through distinctive meta-epistolary images, Forde and Howell purposefully focus attention on the crucial role of familiar letters during this period at the same time that they recognize the threats that letters faced: Forde’s “envious Catterpiller[s].” Forde therefore exhorts R. R., “let our friendship be a Particular Exception from the General Rule of the worlds falshood” (32). Howell complains to R. Howard about an untrustworthy comrade: There be sundry sorts of trusts, but that of a secret is one of the greatest: I trusted T. P. with a weighty one, conjuring him that it should not take air and go abroad; which was not done according to the rules and religion of Friendship, but it went out of him the very next day. (2:503) Associating trust and secrecy with friendship again in this letter, Howell concludes, “I thought good to give you this little mot of advice, because the Times are ticklish, of committing secrets to any, tho’ not to—Your most affectionate Friend to serve you, / J. H.” (2:504). All four letter writers deliberately distinguish their letters from ­letters of compliment—disingenuous letters associated with flattery, ­untrustworthiness, and duplicity. Forde writes in verse to R. R., “My Tongue’s not tip’t with Complements, which be / But like green leaves to skreen Hypocrisie” (31). Howell counters any perception of his letters as ­untruthful. After expressing his desire to see Altham, Howell writes

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  167 to him, “if you take this for a Compliment (because I am newly come from France) you are much mistaken in—Yours, / J. H.” (1:100). For Loveday, compliment is insincere flattery, as when he writes to his sister, “let us then in spite of all mistakes mutually maintain such a plain-­ dealing love as may well reject the gay discredit of a Complement” (203); or when he writes to his brother, “Ingagement, Obligation, Requital, &c. are but Crutches for a decrepit friendship that cannot stand upon its own leggs; such course hungry flames hasten to their snuffe, unlesse they be fed with the kitchin stuff of Complement” (98). Loveday writes likewise to Mr. H.: “complement … is a commodity I never had any use for: tis a faint sickly friendship that is fed with such weak nourishment” (100 [mispaginated as 98]). Cavendish agrees. “In your last Letter you desired me to write some Letters of Complement,” her correspondent states. “[B]ut I must intreat you to Excuse me, for my Style in Writing is too Plain and Simple for such Courtly Words” (92). Her correspondent favors simple, homely expressions, as in Letter 91: “certainly Friendly and Kind Expressions are to be Prefer’d before Courtly Complements, the First sounds like Real Truth, the Other may be demonstrated to be Feigning, for all Complements Exceed the Truth” (99). Cavendish’s preface to her collection also makes this clear: “I do not intend to Present you here with Long Complements in Short Letters” (8).

Letter Exchange and Cultural Stability For these writers, the cultural decay of the nation is also marked by the loss of learning, the decline of literary exchange, and religious novelty. However, maintaining the constancy of exchange—of letter exchange, book exchange, intellectual exchange, poetry exchange—serves as a countermeasure against the forces of cultural deterioration. Epistolary discussion of religious, intellectual, and literary topics was of course at the core of the humanist letter-writing project, and these four letter writers rehearse this exchange at a time when it seems most critical. For most of these writers, letter writing and learning are synonymous. “[W]ere all Epistles like yours,” Forde writes to R. R., “I would not wonder that Learning and Letters are terms convertible” (71); to J. H. he writes in kind: “I am not ignorant that all kind of Learning hath been wrapt up in Letters: And I assure you, Sir, I shall, in the enjoyment of yours, think my self little less honoured, than I do Lucillius by Seneca’s” (86). These statements are not mere commonplaces of the didactic capacities of letters in general because Forde unequivocally equates the decayed state of learning with the Commonwealth and Protectorate: “I am no whit affected with the heresie of the Times, which count learning and wit … the scum of the bottomless pit” (82), he writes to E ­ dward Howes around 1649–50. Many of Howell’s letters are also learned ones (particularly in the 1647, 1650, and 1655 volumes), letter-essays

168  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections by virtue of their scholarly content. Howell writes on a diverse range of topics including the Low Countries (1:115–29); the Jews (1:312–17); medicine (1:339–41, 2:521–23); religious history (1:342–44); chemistry (1:348–49); wine, liquor, and drinking (2:450–59); language and translation (2:459–78, 587–97); education (2:523–27); astronomy (2:528–34); witchcraft (2:547–51); King James’s reign (2:613–16); church government (2:618–23); and sybils and prophecy (2:629–34). Forde published far fewer letters in his collection, and those much shorter, yet includes discussion of alchemy (86–87), marriage (103–6), the nature of the soul (127–29), the sacrament of the Eucharist (130–34); and in writing to cleric and historian Thomas Fuller remarks, “you have not onely engaged Learning but Religion to perpetuate your labours” (136) in discussing church history. Like Forde, Cavendish decries the state of learning: Learned men are held now in as much Derision and Scorn, as ­Poets and Souldiers were some twenty years since, ‘tis a sign that I­ gnorance hath gotten the Mastery, and that Learning is beaten out of Schools and Colleges, and ‘tis no wonder, since the Protectors of Learning, as Royalty, Nobility, and Gentry, are Beaten out of Power. (180) Fittingly, then, Cavendish frames many of her letters as learned documents. She discusses intellectual topics such as stars and planets (Letters 111, 135, and 138), the nature of science (Letter 157), atomism (­L etter 159), vacuums (Letter 161), religion (Letter 170), Cato and republicanism (Letter 187), and alchemy (Letter 206). Literary topics include Shakespeare (Letter 123), epic poetry (Letter 127), Virgil and Ovid (­L etter 146), and her husband’s poetry (Letter 162). 52 Sharing books and exchanging poetry, as features of intellectual exchange, are also demonstrated in these collections. Howell affords many examples of book exchange in his collection. 53 In one instance, Howell presents a French translation of his own book, Dendrologia: Dodona’s Grove, or The Vocall Forrest (1640 / 13872), to Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Cherbury, with an accompanying letter (1:352). There are several examples in Faenestra of book sharing, as well, including letters that attended Forde’s own books sent to various associates and benefactors.54 Exchange of poetry also nourishes these writers’ coteries. Howell’s ­collection contains numerous examples of his own verse sent to others and his appreciation of others’ lines. 55 Forde, Loveday, and Cavendish also shared poetry. 56 Indeed, for Cavendish poetry is linked to peace: “had I Children,” she writes in Letter 75, I would … perswade them to delight in Poetry and Philosophy, that they might be Civil, Generous, and Just, which would be a Greater and more Lasting Honour to them than Wealth or Titles; besides the

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  169 Pleasure of Thoughts and Tranquility of Mind would be a Heaven upon Earth, all which Silent Contemplation brings them unto, for Contemplation brings Consideration, Consideration brings Judgment, Judgment brings Reason, Reason brings Truth, Truth brings Peace. (87) These letter writers demonstrate in their letters that innovation of ­ iverse sorts might finally lead to national cultural decay.57 For Howell d and Forde this is principally religious novelty. Michael Nutkiewicz has written of Howell’s “disapproval of ‘innovation’,” especially those “innovative disruptions both in parliament and pulpit.”58 As Howell himself puts it to his nephew, “There’s a strange Maggot hath got into their [the English people’s] brains, which possesseth them with a kind of Vertigo; and it reigns in the Pulpit more than anywhere else” (2:427).59 Forde complains to his correspondent, “Do we not daily see Religion drest up in the several shapes of every ones fancie, and obtruded upon the easie multitude, as the onely Deitie for their adoration and observance? our faith made as changeable as our fashions?” (139). Some of Forde’s letters, especially in the latter portion of Faenestra, deal pointedly with religious novelty, such as one mocking the Fifth Monarchists’ wish to “determine the end of the world” (148).60 Cavendish likewise denounces trendiness, concluding Letter 63, “But leaving the Modists to their mode-Clothes, Oaths, Phrases, Courtships, Behaviours, Garbs and Motions … to their mode-Quarrels and Friendships, to their Mode-Lying and Dissembling, I rest, / Madam, / Your faithful Friend and Servant” (77). Yet Cavendish’s criticism of innovation also has religious manifestations, as in Letter 17 where Cavendish makes fun of Puritan women (26–27) and in Letter 76 where she satirizes a Calvinist conventicle (88).61 Loveday’s dislike of ­innovation is most evident in Letter 130, which crystallizes his criticism of “a certain sort of active men” (237) who have “wav’d the Kings party” (238) and who are characterized generally as time-servers and ­opportunists—individuals who have “a vehement desire of Innovation” (239) and used “their best bait Innovation” (238) to attain their ends. These are the same individuals who have “lately crept into the shape and outward Profession of Levellers, &c.” (240), Loveday concludes. Loveday writes to his brother Anthony a poem that includes the lines, “Seas have their shores, and Kings their Parlaments,” closing, “I’le owe no blush then as a debt to shame, / Because that I no Independent am” (13, 14). Because these four writers express anxieties about various forms of innovation in their letters, one can recognize why they imagine constancy and stability as the ideal national condition, and offer narratives of, for instance, cosmic order in this regard. Woolf observes that “Howell was not inclined to accept the notion of the inevitable decay of the world.”62 To check this decay, Howell and Forde maintain a faith in the monarchy

170  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections as the foundational center of the nation. Nutkiewicz states that ­Howell’s politics was based “in a practical commitment to king and court as a source of value and stability.”63 Forde writes in his Characters, “A good King. / Is the Primum mobile of a Kingdome” (B); punning on the “round” in roundhead, Forde represents stability in the individual by the materials used to construct Noah’s Ark: “it is the Character of a good man, to be like the Timber of Noah’s Ark, which was (not round, but) four-square, and would, therefore, not turn, but abide firm” (24–25), as he writes to his father Richard. Hence, considering the statements Forde makes in Faenestra and his other publications, the observations of ­Nutkiewicz and Woolf could apply to Forde as well as to Howell. Cavendish is of like mind. Writing generally of the world’s inconstancy, her correspondent compares that to her own steadfastness in concluding a letter: Constancy is as Seldom or Rarely Seen, as a Blazing Star; Indeed, Constancy in this World is somewhat like a Blazing Star, it Lasts for a time, and then Goes out, for it is not as the Fix’d Stars, but rather as the Wandring Planets; though truly I am constantly Fix’d to be, Madam, Your faithful Friend and Servant. (126) Cavendish explicitly contrasts the troubles of the 1650s to constancy in friendship: as for this Age we live in now, ‘tis Prodigal to their Enemies, and ­Ungrateful to their Friends; but, Madam, though this Age be so ­I nfected in the Generality, yet some Particulars escape this ­I nfection, for You and I are as Constant in Friendship as the Light to the Sun. (92)

Friendship and News Exchange The concept of news may, by definition, be understood as a species of innovation. Indeed, the reportage—or the pointed lack of reportage— of social, political, and military events serves express rhetorical objectives in these collections. In the 1645 Epistolae Howell reports an overwhelming amount of news on national and international affairs.64 Howell’s later addition of dates means to confirm that the letters were composed long before the time of publication, indicating that the letters contain then-current reportage. The 1647, 1650, and 1655 volumes of Epistolae also include letters of news but there are fewer; Howell can even write to his nephew, “I am of the Italian’s mind that said, Nulla

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  171 nuova, buona nuova, no news, good news” (2:410).65 This sort of statement, however, is hardly indicative of the rhetorical value of news Howell otherwise constructs in his collection, because for Howell news acts as a socially binding agent. As Mitchell Stephens has observed, one of the basic functions of news is “to satisfy not only individual cravings for information, for entertainment, for awareness, but societal needs for safety and solidarity.”66 Hence, for Howell, news exchanged within specific royalist coteries does not constitute a form of innovation but rather manifests in-group cohesion. For Forde, by contrast, the essential theoretical difficulty with news (and therefore with letters of news) is that the very concept of news signifies alteration, instability, and uncertainty. Both writers, however, clearly express the various explicit and implicit complications of news and news exchange in their letters. Notably, letter writers in general could manipulate the cultural significations of news exchange, framing it as a dimension of friendship or as an imposition on friendship. For instance, Francis Bacon writes to Thomas Erskine, Viscount Fenton, if I were asked the question I would always choose rather to have a letter of no news than a letter of news; for news imports alteration, but letters of kindness and respect bring that which, though it be no news amongst friends, is more welcome.67 On the other hand, Bacon can also write to John Davies, “I would be glad to hear often from you, and to be advertised how things pass. … At the least it will be a continuance in exercise of our friendship,” where “advertisements” serves as a synonym for news. 68 The same ­letter writer could deploy the various cultural significations of ­epistolary new ­exchange, now accentuating it as an expression of friendship, now as an encumbrance to friendship; correspondents could therefore control the meaning of news exchange depending on the emphasis sought. Howell configures the concept of news predominately to reflect the values and convictions of like-minded individuals. For instance, to Robert Brown Howell writes, “I thank you a thousand times over for yours of the 3d of this present, which abounded with such variety of News … that I made many Friends by it” (1:107). Since he constructs his ­Epistolae to present the aura of originary manuscript circulation, Howell valorizes the importance of handwritten letters of news to foreground what simply transmitting this information safely among royalists means. Such letters were exchanged to establish and strengthen ties among like-minded friends and allies, as Harold Love has recognized in defining the scribal community, in which “the exchange of texts in manuscript serve[d] to nourish a shared set of values and to enrich personal allegiances.”69 Indeed, a conspicuous affective element often informed

172  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections the language of news exchange, insofar as expressions of familiarity and affection aided in assuring a correspondent of the reliability and the value of the news offered.70 Exchanges of news in Howell’s collection clearly have other purposes besides the strictly informational. Forde, conversely, downplays news exchange as a nuisance plaguing intimacy among friends. For Forde, news and what news represents stand in opposition to the enduring ideals of friendship, honesty, and stability that he is demonstrating in and by his letters, while false news is at best misleading information, at worst intentional trickery. By only occasionally referring to current events and by never giving systematic news reports, Forde makes clear he is not writing letters of news— that is, letters documenting current events or reporting at large on ­political affairs. Forde writes to C. F., “Letters are the lawful Spies and ­I ntelligencers of amitie; the honourable Leigers to continue a good correspondencie amongst friends” (122)—intentionally distinguishing his familiar letters from those that were employed for news dissemination, political intelligence, or factional maneuvering. Forde also inversely correlates news with friendship in order to maintain the primacy of familiar letter exchange among friends: “If thou art silent because thou hast no Newes to write,” he asserts to Barwick, “write that thou hast none: However, let the world see there is one dares call himself a friend, though in such an Age as this” (90). For Forde, the act of communication among friends is principal. There were also dangers in transmitting news. Forde writes to A. E., the truth is, I find more danger in the conveying of Newes, than in the hearing of it: Nay, my misery is, I cannot, or dare not at least, inform you of more than every Pamphlet can; to such a height of suspicion are we now arrived. (21) On occasion, Howell also uses this language: “The Times are so ticklish, that I dare not adventure to send you any London intelligence” (1:363), an imprisoned Howell writes to Endymion Porter in a letter dated 1644. “I humbly thank you for your Avisos,” he writes again to Porter in a letter dated two years later. “I cannot correspond with you in that kind as freely as I would” (2:432). Loveday’s perception of news is ambiguous. Loveday can write to R. W., “You know I was never prone to meddle with newes” (160) yet to his brother refers to “the delight I formerly took in writing newes to my Friends [having] lost much of its former reputation with me” (236). Nevertheless, Loveday reports a fair amount of news ­t hroughout his collection; there are, in addition, letters that distinctly show that text had been expurgated for print, as in the omission of news in Letter 6:

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  173 I could make this paper look big with the swelling pride of such newes as would be musick to your eares, but lest the tune should prove Syrenicall, I am loth to deceive you into false joyes. That which has most credit with me, except the K. &c. -----. (9) Another obvious omission occurs in Letter 98: “The strongest incounter with our feares is given by the &c. what that may produce, I leave to the steadier ballance of your Judgement” (181). That said, Loveday generally downplays news in favor of intimacy in his letters, in the same fashion as Forde. Cavendish’s perceptions of news and news culture are few in ­Sociable Letters, but her correspondent writes definitively that “all is not Truth that is Printed in a Gazet, for it is to be observed, that Gazets are fuller of Lies than Truths” (68) in much the same way that Forde does. ­Cavendish, furthermore, points out that false history is formed out of unreliable news: in criticizing the errors in William Sanderson’s A Compleat History of the Life and Raigne of King Charles (1658 / S646), ­Cavendish’s correspondent warns her friend, “you lose your time in reading that History, for it is only a number of Weekly Gazets Compiled into a History, wherein are more Falshoods than Truth” (174–75).71 A skeptical evaluation of news is also given in the portrait of N. G. in Letter 38: he meets News in every Town, which his Memory like a Portmantua carries with him, and as in every Town he takes up some News, so in every Town he leaves some; But such a Posting Life, were I a Man, would be Wearisom to me. (51) Yet perhaps Cavendish’s estimation of news is more understated. Much of what her correspondent reports on consists of day-to-day occurrences and social interactions—not news in terms of the national or international events that concern Howell in the 1645 Epistolae, but rather the narrow, local events that bind the two correspondents together in discussions of marriage matches, of social visits—generally of the doings of the other lords and ladies in the correspondents’ circle. This fact suggests that news of a more specific, local nature serves to tie like-minded individuals together, the kind of news that might in fact have been shared among female royalists of the nobler rank.

Criticisms of Interception and Pamphleteering Ensuring that news circulates safely within a circle of correspondents is among its prerequisites, as Stephens points out. This could not be

174  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections truer of letter transmission during the civil wars and for royalist intrigue during the commonwealth and protectorate periods; the security and privacy of letter exchange are therefore essential, and these criteria are reflected in some of these collections. Loveday, who is writing nothing near to political intelligence or dangerous content, nevertheless frets to Mr. W. about interception: The Letters mentioned are irrecoverably lost: whether any busie hand, or prying eye be guilty of their interception I know not; but though I am confident there was nothing in them that could find work for a jealous construction, yet better judgements concurre with my opinion to lose them quietly. (137) Customary acknowledgment of receipt of a letter becomes ­meaningful, therefore, as in Forde: “Your Letter of the 2d. of November, came safe” (42), he writes—which Forde develops into a childbirth metaphor in ­assuring another correspondent of the safe conveyance of a letter: “Your Letter which mine was big with, is safely delivered, by / Your Friend and Servant, / T. F.” (48). But of the four letter writers, Howell demonstrates the most concern with the privacy and safety of letter exchange—for good reason, as he describes to John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol, in a letter toward the end of his 1645 Epistolae (later dated November 20, 1643): one morning betimes there rush’d into my chamber five armed Men with Swords, Pistols, and Bills, and told me they had a Warrant from the Parliament for me …. they rush’d presently into my Closet, and seiz’d on all my Papers and Letters … which they carry’d away with them. (1:355) Howell was subsequently called before the secretive and feared ­Committee of Examinations, headed by Miles Corbet, and was thrown into the Fleet.72 Several letters written from prison follow to conclude the 1645 collection. Many letters were intercepted and printed during the 1641–51 period; the vast number of printed intercepted letters, no matter if they were authentic or falsified, allowed the public to understand that interception was utterly pervasive. It comes as no surprise then that references to epistolary security occur throughout Howell’s letters: “Could Letters fly with the same Wings as Love useth to do … and be with you in an instant; nor should she fear interception or any other casualty in the way” (1:74–75). Elsewhere Howell writes, “How glad was I, my choice and precious Nephew, to receive yours of the 24th current; wherin I was

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  175 sorry, tho’ satisfied in point of Belief, to find the ill Fortune of Interception which befell my last unto you” (2:537). The safety of transmission and the integrity of an unbroken circuit of communication were especially pertinent when Howell was imprisoned: “Yours of the 13th of this instant cam safely, tho’ slowly, to hand” (2:432), Howell writes from the Fleet to John Hall; and more expansively to another correspondent states, Yours of the 17th current came safely to hand, and I kiss your Hands for it; you mention there two others that came not, which made me condole the Loss of such Jewels, for I esteem all your Letters for being the precious Effects of your Love. (2:539) When writing to Thomas More, Howell invokes the fantasy of instantaneous communication to transcend any material hindrances to intimate contact: Your last of the 4th current came to safe hand, wherein methought each line, each word, each syllable breath’d out the Passions of a clear and candid Soul, of a virtuous and gentle Spirit; Truly, Sir, as I might perceive by your ingenuous and pathetical expressions therein, that you were transported with the heat of true Affection towards me in the writing, so was I in the reading, which wrought upon me with such an Energy that a kind of extasy possess’d me for the time.73 (2:541–42) Howell is suggesting that pleasure is produced within the circuits of reciprocity, in writing and receiving the “spiritualized” letter. When Howell concludes a letter to Dan Caldwell, Commend me to Tom Bowyer, and enjoin him [to send me a letter]: I pray be no Niggard in distributing my Love plentifully among our Friends at the Inns of Court: Let Jack Toldervy [also] have my kind Commends, (1:28) he is investing something as conventional as passing along acknowledgment to others in the correspondents’ circle with telling significance. Passing along acknowledgment to others here represents a positive demonstration of in-group connectedness—the converse of the same strategies used in some of the epistolary fictions in Chapters 1 and 2 where acknowledgment implicates one as a member of a clandestine cabal or a dangerous confederacy.74

176  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections As customary and mundane as references to acknowledgment and safe receipt of a letter are, these dimensions of letter exchange are nonetheless included—particularly in Howell, who had firsthand experience of government intrusion into his letters—to accentuate that even ordinary correspondence between friends needed to be safeguarded and secured in times of letters frequently lost, misdirected, intercepted, and even printed.75 To offer an analogous instance from the same time period, Thomas Knyvett, who took part in a royalist uprising in Lowestoft in March 1643, was, like Howell, imprisoned and worries that Parliament is impeding epistolary exchange with his wife: it doth exstreamly trouble me that I can heare nothing from thee this weeke. I wrote towe letters to thee the last weeke …. If both ­miscarried, I thinke thay are resolv’d to stopp all intercourse ­betwixt vs.76 Like Howell, Knyvett also had to contend with the Committee of Examinations; after some of his personal letters, in fact, came to the hands of Corbet, Knyvett is apprehensive, “‘Tis my vnhappines that these letters … showld come to publick’ vewe.”77 Howell also sincerely seemed to feel in authentic correspondence—that is to say, in a letter not printed in Epistolae Ho-Elianae—the same repugnance to interception, as he expresses it to James Crofts: Among many other Barbarismes which like an impetuous Torrent have lately rush’d in upon us, the interception and opening of Letters is none of the least, For it hath quite bereft all ingenious Spirits of that correspondency and sweet communication of fancy which hath bin alwaies esteemed the best fuel of affection and the very marrow of friendship. And truly, in my judgment, this custom may be termed not only a Barbarisme, but the basest kind of Burglary than can be, ‘tis a plundering of the very brain. (2:658) Because Howell and Forde position their letters as documents that ­ riginally circulated in manuscript within specific, restricted coteries, o they can shift into a critique of print pamphleteering. Howell, in a letter dated 1644, observes to Daniel Featly that “The itching of Scribblers was the scab of the Time [of the League in France]: It is just so now” (2:442). Forde complains likewise of pamphleteers to T. C.: “They [pamphleteers] have exercised their hands and Pens so long, till their Arms begin to be engaged, and ‘tis thought it may prove a Generall Engagement. I can go no farther for the Press” (3). Forde writes elsewhere to A. E., “Lyes are more tolerable now in Print, than loyal Truth in ­Writing” (11).78 Forde and Howell indeed explicitly contrast the honesty and transparency of

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  177 their letters to the falsehoods and obfuscations of print pamphleteering— and implicitly to the “letter to a friend” type that were published for the purposes of political and religious propaganda. Many such letters were printed between 1641 and 1660, and many use the epistolary strategies typical of handwritten letters that in print code the letter as ­authentic, reliable, and unbiased. Thomas Warmstry’s A HandKirchife for Loyall Mourners … for the Bloody Murther … of Our ­G racious King … Being a Letter to a Friend (1649, Feb. 2T / W883A), for example, begins, The great obligations that I beare unto you, for your many favours, and more especially for the refuge and comfort that I have received from you in the time of my persecution, will not suffer the sense that I have of the publique calamities that are now upon us. (3) The pamphlet commences as a familiar letter might, but the language is an artifice employed to frame the heavily partisan material that ­follows. In A True Account of the Great Expressions of Love from the … Kingdom of Scotland unto Lieutenant General Cromwel … Declared in a Letter to a Friend (1648, Oct. 23T / T2369) standard postal apologetics are included to code authenticity, which is marked in the fiction of an ongoing (hence disinterested) correspondence among the individuals: “Dear Friend, / Yours came too late to my hands that I could not make a return by the last Post, how ever you shall now receive with interest a brief account of what I sooner intended” (3). No Droll but a Rational Account … of What the English World Understand by the Term of a Free Parliament in a Letter to a Friend (1660, Feb. 14T / N1175-A, -B), which begins, “Dispensing with those Epistolary Caresses, (with which friends entertain each other)” (3), is coded as a familiar letter even as the familiarities are omitted in order to move to the more important—and ideologically charged—matter that follows.79 Forde and Howell attempt to create a distinction between these sorts of letters and their own in ­order to differentiate their publications from blatant pamphleteering, even though royalists exploited the genre in print for factional purposes, and even though Howell’s and Forde’s own collections of print letters had ideological objectives. Whatever one concludes about these collections’ relation to other sorts of letters commonly published during this time, there is little doubt that these four letter writers were consciously constructing their letters precisely to differentiate them from those that were printed for more obvious propagandistic purposes. This is evident by their criticisms of print and newsmongering; by their repeated references to familiarity, sincerity, and intimacy; and by their emphasis on letters’ meta-­epistolary features. These letter writers were able to do so precisely because their letters were fashioned as collections of familiar letters (not singly printed letters),

178  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections constructed as unbiased, objective letters composed over time and merely gathered together later for publication. Forde’s rationale for publication indeed suggests neutrality; he published the letters “to please all, to injure none,” explaining that the letters are seeing print simply because they have been written (To the Reader, [J8v], K–Kv). In introducing Loveday’s letters, John Pettus hopes likewise that “the communication [of them in print] may be pleasurable to all” (For My Friend Mr. A. L., A3). For Cavendish her purpose is mimetic, as she writes in the preface to the letters: I have Endeavoured under the Cover of Letters to Express the Humors of Mankind, and the Actions of a Man’s Life by the ­Correspondence of two Ladies … which make it not only their Chief Delight and ­Pastime, but their Tye in Friendship, to Discourse by Letters. (8) Howell gestures to neutrality both by marking his letters as impartial historical documents—they are “Records of your own Royal Actions,” he writes in the dedication to Charles (1:4)—and by pointing out in a poem that heads the 1645 Epistolae, titled “To the knowing Reader touching Familiar Letters,” that letters have an essential and comprehensive cultural function that embraces all spheres of human activity.80 Seventeenth-century commentators on Howell’s letters, in fact, highlight the letters’ historical value (John Evelyn, Anthony Wood), their literary and philosophical features (Payne Fisher), and their aesthetic qualities (Wood), not their ideological ones.81

Stoicism, Nostalgia, and Prophecy Understanding the outlook of these writers philosophically allows one to see why they adopt an attitude of fortitude, in particular stoicism, in their letters.82 Examples of stoicism in Howell are several, chiefly in letters dated in the 1640s. He translates two of Seneca’s maxims, “There is nothing more unhappy than he who never felt any adversity” and “There is no greater cross, than not to be able to bear a cross” (1:358), in a letter to Bristol dated 1643 to comment on his reaction to the calamities ­affecting the nation. Forde writes stoically when reflecting on the sad state of protectorate culture, writing to E. M. around 1657–58, The God of union re-unite us, and out of this Chaos of confusion, create an happy concord amongst us, before our rents prove our ruine, and our distractions our destruction. This is the constant and hearty prayer of Sir, your assured Servant, T. F.83 (150–51)

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  179 Cavendish’s correspondent writes likewise: my Happiness is, that I can be Content with any Fortune, so Heaven would but Spare the Life of my Friends, for Fortune can neither Affright nor Surprize me, although she be so Powerful, as to Advance and Ruin whom she pleases. (179) Obliquely referring to the loss of her estates, Cavendish writes in Letter 99 of those living formerly in great Splendor and Plenty, and now in low Despised Poverty and cold Charity, which makes their Conditions or Fortunes so much the more Sad and Lamentable, onely their Souls and Spirits are not according to their Fortunes, for their noble Souls and Heroick Spirits yield not to Fortunes Slavery.84 (107) Besides demonstrating stoic fortitude, Howell and Forde appeal to nostalgia as a tonic for the cultural decay of the period.85 Gerald ­MacLean sees nostalgia in the royalist poetry of the time as an appeal to the past … in order to make an emotive appeal to former conditions, an appeal that can then bear directly upon the ­present …. An ensuing nostalgia for the past and consequent discontent with the present commonly provide poets with an emotive means of making a judgment about the present felt to be true, even when it clearly isn’t, thereby encouraging readers to accept highly charged interpretations as historical facts.86 Howell exemplifies nostalgia by composing the bulk of his 1645 ­Epistolae out of letters written (ostensibly) long before and which refer to major events and figures of King James I’s and King Charles I’s reigns, the letters becoming increasingly resigned as the first civil war approached. David Manuszak observes that Howell’s nostalgic sensibility made the Epistolae extremely popular.87 Forde, beginning his collection with a letter from 1642 in which he remarks regretfully on the king and queen’s departure from London, waxes nostalgic periodically throughout, but this feature becomes most pronounced toward the end of the collection, whose last datable letter (the fifth to last in the collection) is from 1658. Forde writes earlier in the decade to an unnamed correspondent, Gladly doe I remember those happy dayes (now happy onely in the remembrance) that Golden Age, wherein … men walked lovingly

180  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections together, without contentious justling one another … when the way to Heaven was, though a narrow, yet a plain and direct path; not block’d up by envious censures, by distracting clamours. (138) Forde’s nostalgic sensibility is verbalized principally in terms of the decay of the institution of friendship, as he writes to C. A.: But I shall humbly adventure to lay the Scene at a greater distance, and date it from that Golden Age, when hearts were so entwined, they could not part without breaking, when that Gordian knot of amitie was not to be untied, till it were cut by the Sythe of him that out-conquers Alexanders sword. Were it not to upbraid the present Age by the comparison, I could willingly venture at a Character or Encomium of that venerable Friendship, the Imitation of former, and Despair of later Ages. (113) This proclivity to nostalgia, to looking to the past for meaning, creates an inclination to prophecy; the belief that a prophecy has been fulfilled can in turn serve as highly cogent propaganda. As Harry Rusche has remarked of the period, Virtually all prophecies possessed a potential propaganda-value that could be exploited by a clever interpretation or a slight revision, and no prophetic utterance, ancient or recent, was so innocent that it could not be ingeniously twisted to bear upon contemporary religious and political issues.88 Howell, Forde, and Loveday exemplify this impulse.89 When letters appear to be written contemporaneously with the events described therein, but were in fact composed or modified after the fact, they may indeed seem to rewrite history as prophecy, as Patterson has aptly observed of Howell’s Epistolae: the 1645 Epistolae deliver[s] a version of royalist history that would not have been possible without formal manipulation. Howell’s editing, his reinventing of history, were not the result of carelessness or poor memory, but rather of a need to give … it (and hence his audience) the value of hindsight.90 A fine individual instance of Howell rewriting history as prophecy ­occurs in a letter Howell dated May 2, 1640. After recounting a tale to Kenelm Digby of a strange serpent found in the heart of a young man after his autopsy, Howell continues,

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  181 God preserve us from publick Calamities; for serpentine Monsters have been often ill-favour’d presages. I remember in the Roman Story, to have read how, when Snakes or Serpents were found near the Statues of their Gods … there follow’d bloody civil Wars after it. (1:351) Obviously, this letter proved to be a grimly “prophetic” one. As for Loveday, he refers in Letter 94 to a Welsh Prophet … who tells the world of a sudden return of Monarchy to its old bias, and has been so saucy to petition our grand Councel to bring home Charles Stuart to his English Throne, and threatens their disobedience with an utter destruction. … his former predictions have been strangely credited with events, as the death of the King, the lifting the Lords [Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of] Essex and [Thomas] Fairfax successively to the Generalls place, the downfall of Presbytery, and dissolution of this Parliament, which he hit to half an houre. (174–75) In another instance, Loveday writes, I fear the product of these uncivill wars will prove your Chaucer as much Prophet as Poet; but as it is not in our power to stay the hand that scourges us, so it is not in our knowledge how soon the Chirurgery of Heaven will drop balm into our wounds. (98–99 [99 mispaginated as 97]) Loveday is referring to a prophecy attributed to Geoffrey Chaucer that appeared at the end of an edition of Chaucer’s Anelida, printed by ­William Caxton (Westminster, 1477? / 5090). It reads: Whan feyth failleth in prestes sawes, And lordes hestes ar holden for lawes, And robbery is holden purchas, And lechery is holden solas, Than shal the lond of Albyon Be brought to grete confusioun.91 Loveday’s acceptance of this prophecy is measured, as he concludes with the stoic understanding that we cannot know when these sufferings will end and so need to endure them until they halt—yet he makes clear that they will, in fact, end. The same inclination to prophecy occurs in Forde’s Faenestra. Forde writes to Barwick sometime between the first and second civil wars,

182  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections “Things are now at the Height, that we expect a sudden crack: I will not make my paper guilty of relating any of it, you will see it in Print. What effects ‘twill produce, I will not Prophesie” (35)—though, of course, the letter, not published until 1660, indeed seems to “prophesy” the ensuing war. Howell’s final volume of Epistolae was published in 1655, and the vigor of its loyalism had arguably waned by this date.92 The prophetic momentum in Forde, however, is distinctly directed toward the Restoration since Forde, in a subtle and restrained fashion, indeed seems to “predict” the restoration of Charles in his letters. Forde’s collection was published in October 1660 (the date Thomason wrote on his copy). The letters, many datable by way of brief news reports and obscure references, move forward in a generally chronological order from 1642 to around 1658 to point toward the promise of Charles’s restoration. Hence, whereas the expectation for the Restoration is at best fuzzy in Howell’s and Loveday’s collections, in Forde’s collection the progress toward the Restoration is much clearer insofar as Forde, especially in the last portion of the collection (its last datable letter is to 1658 and four letters follow it), paints a particularly discouraging picture of the Protectorate and its culture. Forde, in fact, places a letter (the eighth to last letter in the collection) grossly out of chronological order to emphasize the dreadful shape of the country—a letter that reports the excise riots in Norwich and Smithfield of November 1646 and February 1647: “the Butchers have knock’t down the Excise-men, and cut the throat of the Excise upon meat” (146), Forde recounts to T. C.93 Forde is therefore deliberately associating such civil and economic discord with the Protectorate, since after relating the news Forde writes, “Whither do these confusions tend! Where will they end!” Forde goes on to cite a relevant historical precedent for these events: When Consuls succeeded the Roman Kings, the Historian sayes, they changed gold for brass, and loathing one King, suffered many tyrants, scourging their folly with their fall, and curing a fester’d sore with a poysoned plaister. Do we not plainly see the Fable moralized by our selves? In the following letter, addressed to T. C., Forde again calls attention to the sad shape of the country by ridiculing the religious novelty plaguing the state—here, the Fifth Monarchists, “who would needs determine the end of the world, before the end of the year” (148). Forde mocks those who attempted to engineer the Rapture during April and May 1657 after their effort had failed: “Such is the fate and folly of those false prophets,” Forde moralizes.94 In the fifth to last letter in the collection (written after June 8, 1658), Forde reviles Protectorate justice: “I must tell you, you are not justly ­troubled at the injustice of our new Judges, since they have thereby

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  183 rendred  those brave men Martyrs. … The injustice of the Judges s­ entence, ­declare the justness of the condemned’s cause” (151), he writes to T. C. This passage refers to the trial of 14 royalists for treason, among them Henry Slingsby and John Hewett (the latter were executed on June 8). Forde ends this letter, For though our Curfeu-bell hath been rung out, and the fire of our zeal rak’d up in the ashes of Acts and Orders, yet it is not extinguished: Witness those Sparks who have revenged the death of their Sovereign with the hazard of their own lives. By this time, I doubt not, but they who most endeavoured his Majesties death, have seen cause enough to wish him alive again …. It is yet some comfort that we can mingle sighs, and assist one another with mutual counsels and courtesies. (152) Forde intensifies the critique in the following letter to T. L. by sarcastically leveling his aim at Oliver Cromwell—the first time in the collection he is directly referred to: “Being lately at our New Court,” Forde writes, “there I saw his Highnose, so environed with his guard, as if he had been their prisoner” (153). Forde is tapping into characterizations of Cromwell’s nose and narratives extrapolated from it, in this case to play on Cromwell’s hubris as (mock) king.95 Forde comments further on the deterioration of the court: White-hall is now become Black-hall, with the smoak of coals and matches: But it would make one sad and sigh to see what havock is made of his Majesties goods and houshold-stuff, and to whose using his house & furniture is faln. He ends the letter by observing, “Who can see those brave horses which used to draw his Majesties Coach, now drag in [an] enemies cart, without pity & indignation?” (154). Here, as elsewhere in the ­collection, Forde uses the monarchy as both a nostalgic and a ­prophetic point of reference to engage a profound sense of loss as well as a stoic hope for future rectification. Quoting Forde’s poem “Second Anniversary on Charls the first, 1658,” Andrew Lacey observes ­similarly that the defeat of the Royalists was the necessary preliminary to the ­glorification of Charles, an explanation which is only possible with the benefit of hindsight, when history is read backwards from the regicide. As Forde puts it upon addressing Charles, ‘spite of the sword and axe, you found a way / To win the field, although you lost the day’.96

184  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections Forde’s final letter also seems to gesture in a subtle, perhaps even coded way to the restoration of Charles. It is a letter of farewell and safe ­return to an unidentified “Mr. R. H.”—a correspondent addressed nowhere else in Faenestra: “May success and prosperitie wait upon all your ­undertakings; may health and happiness be your constant attendants; and may the same good Angel that carries you from us, guide you in your journeys, and return you in safety” (158), Forde writes. Although a familiar letter in name and content, the initials “R. H.” could reference “Royal Highness” and the “dear Consort” mentioned at the end of the letter might represent England herself: “She is too much your self to be divided from you in our good wishes,” Forde writes. The letter in whole embodies the sadness of a farewell, the wish of happiness in travel, and the hope of a safe homecoming. It does not directly refer to Charles, his exile, or his restoration, yet this letter rehearses the rhythms of departure and return, of which Charles’s circumstances would be the clearest referent for a loyalist during the last years of the Protectorate. From the hindsight of the Restoration Forde can indeed read events as such and arrange his collection with this one as its final letter. As opposed to that “of those false prophets,” the Fifth Monarchists he mentions in a previous letter, Forde’s “prophecy” is accurate because he already knows that the truth of his letters, as he has constructed them, has been validated. Forde effectively guarantees this evaluation by situating the entire letter collection within the framework of the two title poems of Virtus Rediviva (the larger publication in which Faenestra in Pectore is contained): the first, “A Panegyrick on Our Late King Charles the I,” and the last, “a Panegyrick on His Sacred Majesties Most Happy Return.”

Conclusion In claiming that these authors attempted to code the very genre of the familiar letter as royalist, I would like to point out by way of conclusion that the majority of the single-author letter collections of Englishmen published between 1645 and 1660 (most of them posthumously published) tend to contain royalist attitudes, were framed to appear so, or were published to support a royalist program. John Suckling’s posthumous Letters to Divers Eminent Personages, published as part of Fragmenta Aurea: A Collection of All the Incomparable Peeces Written by Sir John Suckling (1646 / S6126, S6126A-B), ends, significantly, with Suckling’s letter “To Mr. Henry German in the beginning of Parliament, 1640,” in which Suckling advises King Charles, urging him to action and stating in what fashion he should proceed. Certain Letters Written to Severall Persons (1654), another posthumous collection, consists of seven letters by Arthur Capel; it was meant to serve as propaganda since the letters of this royalist martyr detail the religiopolitical repercussions of the civil war and the dangers posed by a destabilized government. Francis

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  185 Bacon’s posthumous The Remaines of the Right Honorable Francis, Lord Verulam … Being Essayes and Severall Letters to Severall Great Personages (1648 / B318), on the other hand, whose contents consist ­primarily of 41 letters, might have been co-opted for both parliamentarian and royalist programs.97 John Donne’s Letters to Severall Persons of Honour (1651, Feb. 9T / D1864) contains the missives of an individual who was a noteworthy high churchman during the reigns of James and Charles. Even the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened, which was a parliamentarian propaganda tactic, served in some ways to code familiar letters as royalist—familiar, because of the intimacy expressed in many of the letters by Charles to his wife. Royalists, in fact, reappropriated the letters published in Kings Cabinet Opened by reprinting them after Charles’s execution in Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae: the Workes of That Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the Ist (2 vols., 1650 / C2072) where the letters are reconstituted by revisioning them—­ letters, as the editor of the collection writes, “Wherein do evidently appear to His Majesties Honour (contrary to the intention of the first publishers) His Majesties Princely Wisdom, and Piety” (1:223). Few printed letter collections of the time period, then, were ­indubitably parliamentarian, puritan, or supported unequivocally a republican political perspective. The writers who published their familiar letter collections, as well as those who printed posthumous collections of letters of notable individuals, generally attempted to construct these publications as ones that supported royalist political, social, and religious principles; they endeavored to code the intimate and civil mode of epistolary communication as exclusively royalist. The familiar letter— in particular, the familiar letter collection—was by this process appropriated as royalist literary property. Yet by no means do wish to suggest that royalists cornered the market on epistolary propaganda. As we shall see in the following chapter, Parliament overwhelmed ­royalists when it came to printing intercepted, captured, and discovered letters as propaganda.

Notes 1 Edward Brown, trans., The Letters of the Renowned Father Paul [Sarpi] (1693 / S698), Preface of the English Translator, xxi. 2 In 1608 four decades of letters were printed: 12661.7, 12662, 12662.5 (­Decades 1–2, entered November 20, 1607), and 12663.2 (Decades 3–4, entered October 17, 1608). In 1611 two more decades were printed: 12663.4 and 12663.6 (entered October 4, 1610). Edward Arber, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London, 1554–1640, 5 vols. (London: Privately Printed, 1875–1894), 3:365, 445. 3 Leonard D. Tourney, Joseph Hall (Boston: Twayne, 1979), 55; Hans ­Werner, “The Hector of Germanie, or The Palsgrave, Prime Elector and Anglo-­ German Relations of Early Stuart England: The View from the Popular Stage” in The Stuart Court and Europe: Essays in Politics and Political

186  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections Culture, ed. R. Malcolm Smuts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 117, 124 (113–32). Some addressees “were prominent contemporaries who might or might not have been known to Hall, but who provided him with an opportunity to position himself precisely in relation to many of the great controversial issues of the day” (Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “Popularity, Prelacy and Puritanism in the 1630s: Joseph Hall Explains Himself,” The English Historical Review 111.443 [Sept. 1996]: 861 [856–81]). 4 Joseph Hall, The Works of the Right Reverend Joseph Hall, 10 vols., ed. Philip Wynter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1863), 6:129. 5 Hall, 6:186, 225, 236, 245, 288. 6 See Hall, 6:137, 213, 298–300. See also Richard A. McCabe, Joseph Hall, A Study in Satire and Meditation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 285–86, for Hall’s satire in his homiletics. 7 See, for instance, Martin A. S. Hume, ed., Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English Affairs Preserved Principally in the Archives of Simancas, 1587–1603, 4 vols. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1892–1899), 4:589. 8 Capel uses the term “Regicides,” though the letter is dated January 9, 1649, before Charles was executed. 9 Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1500–1700 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 253, 263. 10 Matthew Jenkinson offers the identification of W. S. in Culture and ­Politics at the Court of Charles II, 1660–1685 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2010), 40. I quote from S204aA. The pamphlet is essentially a reprinting of The Speeches and Prayers of Some of the Late King’s Judges (1660, Oct. 1T / S4874-A, -B) but with added commentary. 11 Jenkinson, 38. 12 J. Milton French and Maurice Kelley, “That Late Villain Milton,” ­Publications of the Modern Language Association 55.1 (Mar. 1940): 103 (102–18). 13 It was probably printed in October (French and Kelley, 106). 14 Quoted in French and Kelley, 108. 15 Nicholas von Maltzahn, “L’Estrange’s Milton,” in Roger L’Estrange and the Making of Restoration Culture, eds. Anne Dunan-Page and Beth Lynch (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), 43 (27–52). See also Robert Thomas Fallon, ­M ilton in Government (University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 1993), 87. 16 See Schneider, Epistolarity, Chapters 5 and 6 for these. 17 Of pre-1645 familiar letters, Three Proper and Wittie Familiar Letters and Two Other Very Commendable Letters (1580 / 23095), letters exchanged by Edmund Spenser and Gabriel Harvey, represent rare examples. 18 As far as self-standing single-authored familiar letter collections go, John Milton’s Joannis Miltonii, Angli, Epistolarum Familiarium (1674 / M2117), comprised of 31 chronologically arranged letters composed between 1625 and 1666, appears to be the only one by a native English writer. 19 The letter collection is contained in Virtus Rediviva, a Panegyrick on Our Late King Charles the I … Attended with Severall Other Pieces from the Same Pen (1660, Oct.T / F1550). 20 Frank Livingstone Huntley, “Robert Loveday: Commonwealth Man of Letters,” The Review of English Studies, n.s., 2.7 (July 1951): 266 (262–67); Diana Barnes, “The Restoration of Royalist Form in Margaret Cavendish’s

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  187

21 22 23

24

25

26 27

28

29

Sociable Letters” in Women Writing, 1550–1750, eds. Jo Wallwork and Paul Salzman (Bundoora: Meridian, 2001), 208 (201–14). See Schneider, Epistolarity (249–52) for more on the importance of Howell’s collection in the context of print letters. Barnes, “Royalist Form,” 204. Loveday’s collection was ultimately published posthumously, although he makes two statements in his letters making clear his intention to publish them. See 258 and 262. Joseph Jacobs, ed., “Introduction,” in Epistolae Ho-Elianae: The Familiar Letters of James Howell, 2 vols. (London: David Nutt, 1892), 1:xvi, lxxiii–vi; Annabel Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (Madison: University of ­Wisconsin Press, 1984), 210. For instance, the first letter in the 1645 Epistolae was later dated 1619, but among the news it reports is the Thomas Overbury murder trial, current in late 1615. Forde was born a yeoman in Maldon, Essex, in 1624, and was a Stationers’ Company apprentice from 1642 to 1649 after which time he probably returned to Essex. See my “Thomas Forde, Stationers’ Company Apprentice and Author: New Information about His Life and Works,” The Library, 7th ser., 8.3 (Sept. 2007): 314–24, for fuller biographical information. Loveday was born into a family of Chediston, Suffolk, and served Lord ­E dward and Lady Clinton. See further biographical details in Huntley, “Robert Loveday,” 262–67. For Loveday’s connection to Browne, see Frank Livingstone Huntley’s “The Occasion and Date of Sir Thomas Browne’s ‘A Letter to a Friend’,” Modern Philology 48.3 (Feb. 1951): 157–71. See Katie Whitaker, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, Royalist, Writer and Romantic (London: Chatto and Windus, 2003), 224, for details. James Fitzmaurice, ed., “Introduction” in Margaret Cavendish: Sociable Letters (New York: Garland, 1997), xii; and James Fitzmaurice, ­“Autobiography, Parody and the Sociable Letters of Margaret Cavendish” in A Princely Brave Woman: Essays on Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, ed. Stephen Clucas (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 69–83. Subsequent references to CCXI Sociable Letters are from Fitzmaurice’s modern edition and located in the text. I am of the opinion that direct political perspective was expunged from Loveday’s collection before its April 1659 publication date (when republican retaliation might have been feared). Many letters have been perceptibly amended for publication (see 9 and 181, for instance); and John Pettus, friend and correspondent of Loveday, writes in the preface (dated May 14, 1657) that “I remember there were some other passages in some of them, concerning the Transactions of that age wherein he writ: subjects too subtile for a private Pen, I wish them rather expung’d then expos’d” (For my Friend Mr. A. L., A3), which implies that the letters have indeed been expurgated. Hilda L. Smith, for instance, writes of the ambiguity of Cavendish’s social and political attitudes: Strongly royalist (she once refused to take an oath abjuring antiparliamentary efforts, a condition of her returning to Antwerp to visit her ailing husband), Cavendish nevertheless did not feel obligated to follow the royalist position on a wide range of social, religious, and political issues. Smith also writes, “Iconoclastic views appear throughout her works, but political heterodoxy is most prominent in her Orations and Sociable Letters.” “‘A General War amongst the Men … But none amongst the Women’:

188  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections

30 31

32 33 34 35

36

37 38 39

40

Political Differences between Margaret and William Cavendish” in Politics and the Political Imagination in Later Stuart Britain: Essays Presented to Lois Green Schwoerer, ed. Howard Nenner [Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 1997], 153 [143–60]). Mihoko Suzuki also discusses Cavendish’s “ambiguous royalism” in Subordinate Subjects: Gender, the Political Nation, and Literary Form in England, 1588–1688 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 182–202. Barnes, “Royalist Form,” 201. Maren-Sofie Røstvig, The Happy Man: Studies in the Metamorphoses of a Classical Ideal, 2 vols. (Oslo: Akademisk Forlag, 1954–1958); Earl Miner, The Cavalier Mode from Jonson to Cotton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971); Raymond Anselment, Loyalist Resolve: Patient Fortitude in the English Civil War (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1988); James Loxley, Royalism and Poetry in the English Civil Wars: The Drawn Sword (New York: St. Martin’s, 1997). Quoted in David Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy in England, 1649–1660 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 87. Emma Rees, Margaret Cavendish: Gender, Genre, Exile (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003), 175. See also Robert Wilcher, The Writing of Royalism, 1628–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 146–50, on usages of the familiar letter during this period. Patterson, 213, but see 210–18. Fitzmaurice (Introduction, Sociable Letters) points out a letter of Cavendish likely written after the Restoration that was meant to appear to have been written before the Restoration (xii); see also 176n88. For example, the author of The Life and Death of King Charles the Martyr Parallel’d with Our Saviour (1649, Aug. 20T / L2001) claims that in executing Charles “they have overthrown the order of God and Nature, dissolved the bonds of humane society” (2). Quoted in Jerome Friedman, The Battle of the Frogs and Fairford’s Flies: Miracles and the Pulp Press during the English Revolution (New York: St. Martin’s, 1993), 35, but see Chapters 2 and 3. Forde himself observes this in a poem celebrating Charles II’s restoration: “No more shall brother brother kill, / Nor sonnes the blood of fathers spill” (“Upon His Sacred Majesties Most Happy Return,” Fragmenta Poetica, 23, in Virtus Rediviva). For an evaluation of friendship and royalist poetry during this time, see Miner, 250–305; for prose letters and friendship in particular see 261–63. James Howell, Epistolae Ho-Elianae: The Familiar Letters of James Howell, 2 vols., ed. Joseph Jacobs (London: David Nutt, 1892), 1:131. ­Subsequent references to Epistolae are from this edition and located in the text. Daniel Woolf, “Conscience, Constancy, and Ambition in the Career and Writings of James Howell,” Public Duty and Private Conscience in ­Seventeenth-Century England: Essays Presented to G. E. Aylmer, eds. John Morrill, Paul Slack, and Daniel Woolf (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 261. An exemplary instance of this characterization of friendship in Howell’s own words is his address to Thomas Hammons: “You know there is a peculiar Religion attends Friendship. … There belong to this Religion of Friendship certain due rites, and decent ceremonies, as Visits, Messages, and Missives” (2:439–40). Except for a letter to his father, Forde indicates his correspondents by initials only, though occasionally including a correspondent’s first name in the salutation. Where these correspondents have been identified, I give them. He

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  189

41 42 43 4 4

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

57

58 59 60 61 62 63

64

also does not include the dates of the letters, but where they can be deduced, I give them. Compare Howell on the same subject, 1:360. Indeed criticism of civil war figures significantly in Cavendish. See 18, 42, 57, 96, 127, 196, 198, 227, for instance. See also Letter 18. Sociable Letters and Cavendish’s Philosophical Letters (1664 / N866) together constitute “an ambitious project to model reasoned civility,” contends Barnes (Epistolary Community in Print, 1580–1664 [Farnham: Ashgate, 2013], 137). Anna Bryson, From Courtesy to Civility: Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 214. Bryson, 213–14. Woolf also makes this point (260n13). See Judith Rice Henderson, “On Reading the Rhetoric of the Renaissance Letter” in Renaissance Rhetorik / Renaissance Rhetoric, ed. Heinrich F. Plett (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 154–55 (143–62). The trope is also reiterated in later volumes: see, for instance, 2:378, 495, 541. See also 2:523, 637 for this image. See also 1:224 for another example. See also Whitaker, 260–61, on Cavendish’s discussion of scholarly topics. For book sharing in Howell, see 1:18, 114, 276, 322, 329, 342, 361; 2:406, 413, 421, 492, 511, 546, 547, 552, and 638. For letters accompanying Howell’s presentation of his own works, see 2:509, 600, 623, 636, and 640. For book sharing in Forde, see 81, 83, 86, 88, 123, and 126; for Forde’s presentation of his own works to others, see 40, 60, 61, 62, 100, and 120. For Howell exchanging poetry in his letters, see 1:40, 68, 194, 195, 224, 262, 270, 272, 276, 312, 329, 332; 2:406, 414, 431, 447, 449, 500, 517, 523 563, 572, 574, 598, 628, 635, 641, and 642. For Forde’s exchange of his own verse in letters, see 27, 31, 36, 38, 58, 67, 83, 92, and 98. For exchanges of literature and discussion of literary topics in Loveday, see 12, 26, 29, 148, and 232. For literature exchange in Cavendish, see 85, 185, and 209. For Howell’s dislike of innovation, see Michael Nutkiewicz, “A Rapporteur of the English Civil War: The Courtly Politics of James Howell (1594?– 1666),” Canadian Journal of History 25 (Apr. 1990): 27–29 (21–40); and Woolf, 262. For Forde and the theme of mutability, see George Williamson, “Mutability, Decay, and Seventeenth-Century Melancholy,” English Literary History 2.2 (Sept. 1935): 146–47 (121–51). Nutkiewicz, 27; see also 28, 29, 35, and 36. See also 2:486, 508, 607, 622, and 634. See also 133 and 138. For other examples of her view of novel religious practices, see 62 and 95. See also Fitzmaurice, “Autobiography, Parody,” 70. Woolf, 252. Nutkiewicz continues, “For Howell, politics was an activity limited to the monarch and to the men at his court. Even the Church has its foundation in the monarchy because any change in religious practice must begin at court” (29). Although he was later criticized for it, Howell in his Som ­Sober Inspections (1655, Sept. 24T / H3116) encouraged Cromwell to take the crown so that sovereignty and the kingship would be embodied in one man ­(Nutkiewicz, 37). See also Woolf, 273 and 277. Patterson figures that 3 out of every 5 letters reported news in the 1645 ­Epistolae (211).

190  Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections 65 Forde reiterates this sentiment in his collection: “Concerning Newes, I am of the Italians mind, That nulla nuova, is bona nuova” (37). 66 Mitchell Stephens, A History of News: From the Drum to the Satellite (New York: Viking, 1988), 35. 67 James Spedding, ed., The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon, 7 vols. ­(London: Longmans et al., 1861–1874; reprint, Stuttgart: Friedrich ­Fromann, 1962–1963), 6:210. 68 Spedding, 4:6. 69 Harold Love, The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), 177. News exchange was an especially significant exemplification of such scribal publication (see 9–22). 70 See Schneider, Epistolarity, 152–60, for more on the sociology of epistolary news exchange. 71 See also 68. 72 Jacob cites an order by the Commons of November 14, 1642, for H ­ owell’s imprisonment (1:xlii). On the Committee of Examinations, see William ­Epstein, “The Committee for Examinations and Parliamentary Justice, 1642–1647,” The Journal of Legal History 7.1 (1986): 3–22. 73 John Donne’s expression of this sort of epistolary communion is no doubt more familiar: “this writing of letters … is a kind of extasie, and a ­departure and secession and suspension of the soul, which doth then co[m]municate it self to two bodies” (Letters to Severall Persons of Honour [1651, Feb. 9 T / D1864], 11). 74 See also just from the 1645 edition 1:32, 56, 69–70, 89, 146, 156, 173, 185, 219, 238, and 267. 75 Other examples in Howell: to his father (1:40), to Dan Caldwell (1:40), and to R. Brownrigg (2:428)—there are many others. 76 Thomas Knyvett, The Knyvett Letters (1620–1644), ed. Bertram Schofield (London: Constable, 1949), 120. 77 Knyvett, 117. 78 In his Characters in a section on “Pamphlets,” Forde describes them as “Ubiquitary flyes that have of late so blistred the eares of all men, that they cannot endure any solid truth” (C5). 79 I quote from N1175B. 80 On the other hand, Howell’s bold dedication of the book to King Charles, while the author was in prison, suggests anything but neutrality. 81 These evaluations appear in Jacobs, 1:xv–xvi. 82 See Woolf on Howell’s neostoicism, 247–56. 83 See also 76. 84 See also the end of Letter 167 (178). 85 The impetus to nostalgia is evident but not nearly as pronounced in L ­ oveday and Cavendish. Loveday, for instance, writes in Letter 5, “Ah Robin! whither is fled the beauty of those daies that so oft saw us feed our felicity with the mutuall charesses [i.e., caresses] of our spotlesse amity?” (8), while for Cavendish, the nostalgic component may be embedded in her valuations of the country life (Anna Battagelli, Margaret Cavendish and the Exiles of the Mind (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1998), 88; see also 155). 86 Gerald MacLean, Time’s Witness: Historical Representation in English ­Poetry, 1603–1660 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 157–58. 87 David Manuszak, “Beyond the Guidebooks: The Freeing of the Familiar Letter in James Howell’s Epistolae Ho-Elianae,” Cahiers Elisabethains 24 (Oct. 1983): 51 (47–59).

Loyalists Printing Familiar Letter Collections  191 88 Harry Rusche, “Prophecies and Propaganda, 1641 to 1651,” English Historical Review 84.333 (Oct. 1969): 753 (752–70). See also Friedman, Chapters 4 and 11. 89 See also Cavendish’s Letter 165 (176), but this letter is not especially ­politically prophetic. 90 Patterson, 213. See also 216; and Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret ­Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 149–50, on this phenomenon generally. 91 Quoted in Gertrude H. Campbell’s “Chaucer’s Prophecy in 1586,” Modern Language Notes 29.6 (June 1914): 196 (195–96). 92 See Woolf, 273–74, for instance. 93 Michael J. Braddick explains that excise riots in Norwich and Smithfield ­occurred during these dates, and no others of the sort throughout the period. “Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath,” The Historical Journal 34.3 (Sept. 1991): 597 (597–626). 94 See Louise Fargo Brown, The Political Activities of the Baptists and Fifth Monarchy Men in England during the Interregnum (New York: Burt ­Franklin, 1911), 116–18, for the Fifth Monarchists’ plan; and B. S. Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English Millenarianism (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972), 117–20. 95 See Laura Lunger Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony, ­Portrait, and Print, 1645–1661 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 126. 96 Andrew Lacey, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), 99. 97 See Patricia Brewerton’s “The Editing of Francis Bacon as a Man for All Parties,” Centre for Editing Lives and Letters, www.livesandletters.ac.uk/ papers/BAC_2003_03_001.pdf.

4 Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters

let Messages be intercepted, Letters counterfeited, Designs be d ­ iscovered, and it will go hard if we cannot fish out something in these troubled waters —John Berkenhead, Cabala, or An Impartial Account of the Non-Conformists Private Designs, Actings and Wayes (1663)1

Of the various sorts of printed letters I am examining in this study, ­captured, discovered, and intercepted letters constitute the greatest ­number of publications. Of course, these sorts of letters as bearers of ­(secret) information served a variety of military or strategic purposes upon their discovery, capture, or interception; once published, however, these letters constituted virtually their own genre and were recognized during the seventeenth century as a distinct species of print letter, performing various persuasive and propagandistic functions. Captured, discovered, and intercepted letters in print were crucial sites of textual, evidentiary, and—in the end—ideological contestation. Captured letters consist of those taken in military contexts, usually one’s own letters and those that had been received by that recipient. Discovered letters are those found in one’s closet or chambers or, more rarely, dropped accidentally, and usually letters that had already been sent and received. Intercepted letters comprise those taken in transit and never received by their intended addressees. Because they were understood to reveal interiority, these sorts of letters were central in forming, developing, and sustaining cultural narratives surrounding the circumstances that produced them and the individuals who exchanged them. As we saw in the preceding chapter, loyalists exploited familiar letter collections to engage civil war, commonwealth, and protectorate ­culture. ­Parliament, however, proved itself far more adept at exploiting intercepted, captured, and discovered letters in print, either singly or in collections, to forward its agendas. In this chapter, I isolate publications of captured, discovered, and intercepted letters that were among the most politically and culturally pertinent, as demonstrated, for instance, by the impact they had, by the

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  193 significance of narratives they promoted, and sometimes by the influence they had on subsequent publications of captured, discovered, or intercepted letters. This chapter will perforce focus on the years between 1641 and 1651 when the greatest number of genuine letters of this type were published within the century. Scholars writing on captured, discovered, and intercepted letters have favored those printed in the form of self-standing pamphlets and single sheets over the same sort of letters printed in newsbooks—and for good reason, since official publication of such material took the form of pamphlets and broadsides; captured, discovered, and intercepted letters also tended to be printed in (official) pamphlets and broadsides in advance of the same letters later printed in newsbooks. However, such a sequence was by no means unfailing, as newsbook report and summary of—even paraphrases and quotes from—captured, discovered, and intercepted letters sometimes preceded their appearance in (official) pamphlet and single sheet form. Furthermore, many publications of captured, discovered, and intercepted letters accumulated substantial media attention in the form of newsbook editorializing both before and after the letters saw print in pamphlet or broadside form. While I give precedence in this chapter to analysis of captured, discovered, and intercepted letters in pamphlets and broadsides, the dynamic interaction of occasional pamphlet publication and periodical publication constituted a consequential interface where newsbooks regularly reported, summarized, quoted, referenced, supported, and condemned the letters in question—even in cases when a captured, discovered, or intercepted letter never received publication, official or otherwise, in other print forms. Indeed, captured, discovered, and intercepted letters, as a unique ­species of the genre, often commanded special public attention. ­Brilliana Harley in Herefordshire during early 1642 queries her son in London “of letters that weare intersepted from my lord Digbe. I desire to know wheather theare was any such thing or no” only five days after Parliament learned of the letters. 2 Robert Baillie writes in June 1645 of a different intercepted letter of George Digby that was “the talk of thousands,” and which indeed garnered much print media attention: it was summarized and speculations on it were offered in Mercurius Civicus, diatribe fashioned from it in The Parliaments Post, and while there was no official publication of this letter in pamphlet or broadside, it was discussed in the Commons and Lords on June 7 and used as evidence of massive plotting a few months later in David Buchanan’s A Short and True Relation of Some Main Passages of Things (1645, Sept. 14T / B5273). 3 The public was well informed when letters were captured, discovered, and intercepted, particularly through newsbooks, even when the letters were not officially printed by Parliament. A 1643 issue of Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages, for instance, reports on four separate letter interceptions between January 30

194  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters and February 2.4 In other cases, newsbook editors offered observations on intercepted letters even when the letters themselves were not printed in full but only reported or summarized. 5 In yet other situations, letters intercepted by Parliament but not ordered to be published were sometimes printed, quoted, or extensively summarized in newsbooks, single sheets, and pamphlets nevertheless, such as—to offer but one of numerous examples—an intercepted letter from Murrough O’Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin, to Charles I.6 The letter was broadly summarized in A Diary, or An Exact Journall, summarized with editorial commentary in The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, and resummarized again in Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer after it had appeared in full, but unofficially, in the pamphlet A Letter from the Right Honourable the Lord Inchiquin and Other [of] the Commanders in Munster to His Majestie (1644, Sept. 14T / I131).7 Since the reportage in a given newsbook was, in essence, constructed via letters generally—either in marking them as sources of information, summarizing them, or giving them in abstract or direct quote—captured, discovered, and especially intercepted letters became a recognized component of mid-seventeenth-century newsbooks.8 While fictional captured, discovered, and intercepted letters in print ought logically to have been handled in Chapter 1, some are included in this chapter to compare and contrast them with authentic ones. Indeed, it was sometimes impossible to determine if a particular captured, discovered, or intercepted letter was fake or genuine; to this day, certain discovered and intercepted letters confound determinations of authenticity. Debates about what was authentic and what was forged in fact constituted major components of propaganda and the print war, as the dispute between truth and falsehood was, in the sphere of print, often an ideological one: forged or genuine, captured, discovered, and intercepted letters were effectively employed as print propaganda, their cultural impact sometimes displacing evaluations of their authenticity. Epistolary anxiety—the fear that a letter could be miscarried, lost, or intercepted—was inscribed in handwritten letters, and this anxiety could extend to the fear that one’s intercepted letters might be printed.9 Baillie writes on May 9, 1645, to Robert Morray and Patrick Gillespie of such an apprehension: I desire when you writ to me, you may not subscribe, for I knou all your hands that used to writ, and I have no mind that Mercurius Aulicus get any of your letters to print, as they have lately printed at Oxford letters from Lanerick [i.e., William Hamilton, 1st Earl of Lanark], [Archibald Johnston, Lord] Wareston … and others, which were intercepted coming from Scotland to London, after the end of your Parlament.10

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  195 Although omitting a signature or superscription did not guarantee that a letter would dodge print—indeed, among the very group of letters to which Baillie refers a letter “From Mistris Dorothy Spense (without a ­Superscription.)” was printed—not inscribing these helped hinder a compromising letter from appearing in print under one’s name.11 Intercepted letters, once printed, could have a powerful and extensive resonance. Yet intercepted letters were so frequently printed that they also became the subject of ridicule. Roger L’Estrange, in his An Account of the Growth of Knavery (1678 / L1193), referring to the events of the 1640s, comments, “what were all their [the rebels’] Stories of Popish Plots, Intercepted Letters, Dark Conspiracies, but only Artifices to gull the Credulous and Silly Vulgar?” (10). L’Estrange recognizes the propagandistic value of printing even phony intercepted letters. In fact, in an earlier publication, Sir Politique Uncased, or A Sober Answer to a ­Juggling Pamphlet (1660, Mar. 29T / L1308A)—a reply to A Letter Intercepted Printed for the Use and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader (1660, Mar. 23T / D67)—L’Estrange responds to the “intercepted” letter, laying bare the artifices of publications of this sort masquerading as genuine intercepted letters: I have heard of one that has made himself a Cuckold, — that has pick’d his own pocket, — and ‘tis possible, a man may Design upon himself, and Intercept his own Letters. The Miscariage, I confesse, is a little odd; where the Courted party, — the Contriver, — and the Intercepter, are all One, and the same Person. (The Plot Is Borrowed from the Story of Narcissus …) (1) Early modern perceptions of intercepted, captured, and discovered letters in print were not always this cynical, however. Despite L’Estrange’s mockery of the practice of faking intercepted letters, because captured, intercepted, and discovered letters disrupted exchange and transposed possession, they operated to document their correspondents’ thoughts, feelings, and actions. This capacity gave such letters a distinctive persuasive power that was even more compelling once printed.

1641–42: The Long Parliament and the Press Among the first authentic intercepted letters printed before the beginning of the civil wars are included in The Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips, the Queenes Confessor, Which Was Thought to Be Sent into France to Mr. Montague (1641 / P2039-A), probably printed in early July.12 The pamphlet was a consequence of parliamentary discussion of the Ten Propositions, specifically the fourth head, regarding the queen. In his speech to the Lords outlining the propositions (restrictions on

196  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters King Charles I intended to convey to him Parliament’s apprehensions), John Pym refers to the need for the queen to purge her household of dangerous individuals, namely Jesuits and Capuchins, and gives reasons for it: 2. Disaffection to the State, manifested in Two Letters, dated 6º Maii, whereby many Slanders are cast upon the Parliament; and the good Subjects, under the Name of Puritans, are disaffected and injurious to the Queen’s Person. And thereupon the Cardinal [Richelieu] excited to some Design against England. 3. The Letter of Father Phillips, wherein, by Way of Reproach unto the Parliament, he writes: That the Protestation taken in both Houses is like the Scottish Covenant, but somewhat worse.13 Like the official record, private journal entries by Simonds D’Ewes, John Holland, and John Moore make clear that three intercepted letters were read: two without signatures dated May 6 and a third by Robert Philip, the queen’s confessor, dated May 16.14 As I have shown elsewhere, Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips is, in fact, an amalgam of all three letters, all of which were intercepted by Parliament after closing the ports on May 6 to stop those implicated in the first Army Plot from fleeing.15 The title and the heading of the pamphlet, however, unequivocally indicate Philip as the author of the principal scandalous letter contained in the pamphlet. The attribution to Philip was reaffirmed by partisan ideologues like William Prynne and John Rushworth, though only a small portion of his letter was included in the pamphlet: lines stating that the “Protestation which was taken in both Houses of Parliament, of the same nature, but rather worse then the Scottish Covenant” (5).16 The pamphlet, in fact, intends to lay out two letters—a long letter apparently given in full but with editorial insertions clarifying some of the details and errors, and another letter following given in summary. Indeed, confusion abounds in the text: after the first, long letter in the pamphlet, it reads, “This Letter was thought to be sent from a Priest, calling himselfe Father Philips to Mr. Mountague”; yet “There was another Letter, and that was sent from one Robert Philips, one of the Queenes Priests, and it is supposed to be to M. Mountague” and this letter was signed “Fr. Philips” (5). When the pamphlet’s content is examined through private journal reports of the discussion of the three letters from which it is constituted, Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips is revealed as a publication that does not represent a legitimate letter of Philip, though it does set out, in garbled form, the content of three distinct intercepted letters. At the time of publication, Sidney Bere writing to John Penington on July 8, 1641, made reference to the dubiousness

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  197 of Philip’s authorship: “that scandalous supposed letter of Father [­Robert] Phillips has … been printed, but there is search made about it, and, can the author be found, no doubt they will make him an example.”17 Although Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips was indeed an illicit publication, no order from Parliament to suppress the pamphlet was issued, though John Hotham made a dilatory motion on August 23 to punish the printer, even though the “letter [was] (long ago done)” because “it was a great dishonor to the King and Queen.”18 Considering the intent of the Ten Propositions, there was political capital to be made by implicating Queen Henrietta Maria’s confessor as the author of a perfidious letter. The two unsigned letters of May 6 were first brought to Parliament’s attention on June 8 but not made use of until June 24 expressly in conjunction with Philip’s May 16 letter when all three were used to support Pym’s fourth head about keeping dangerous religious and foreign influences from the queen.19 Even though Philip’s letter was distinguished from the others both in the official record and in many private journal entries, the title of Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips offers no such distinctions, and Philip himself, as the author of treacherous material, is framed as a dangerous presence at court. Indeed, the first line of the letter seems to incite foreign invasion by Henrietta Maria’s brother, the king of France: The good King and Queene are left very naked, the Puritans, if they durst, would pull the good Queen in pieces, can the good King of France suffer a Daughter of France his Sister, and her children, to be thus affronted[?] (1) Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips was reprinted later in the year in The Diurnall Occurrences (1641 / E1527), and Philip continued to be harassed in print, for example, in the fictional The Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere in Ireland the Third of October 1641 to Old Father [Robert] Philips (1641 / T2053-A), which I examined in Chapter 1. 20 The attribution of the letter to Philip was questioned by Bere, who called it “supposed.” This uncertainty not only reemphasizes the difficulty the public had in sorting out real from fictional letters, but also underlines that broader cultural perceptions could displace questions of fictionality and authenticity; indeed, the publication of Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips in part prompted a patriotic response in the form of A True Relation of the French Embassage with the Confutation of Some Points of Father Phillips His Letter (1641 / T2957), in which Philip’s authorship of the letter is assumed. Later in the century, John Nalson argued that the letter attributed to Philip was fake; yet when considering the cultural impact of Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips, Nalson

198  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters deemed the letter’s spuriousness virtually beside the point: “Real or Counterfeit, it [the letter] served their [the parliamentary party’s] Turn, made a mighty Noise, and furnished them with a fresh Supply of those Fears and Jealousies with which they intoxicated the People.”21 A cluster of discovered and intercepted letters that describe—­vaguely—a Catholic plot to destroy London and Parliament was printed during January 1642. Chief among these is A Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman, the Fourth of January, and a Letter Inclosed in It to One Master Anderton (1642), published soon after January 11; it exists in a number of manifestations, most in broadside.22 These letters were initially sent in manuscript to member of Parliament Orlando Bridgeman who brought them before the committee of the House of Commons, having opened only the letter addressed to him. The letter addressed to Bridgeman reads, We are your friends, These are to advice [i.e., advise] you to look to your self, and to advise others of my Lord of Straffords friends to take heed, lest they be involved in the common Calamity, our advise is, to be gone, to pretend businesse till the great Hubbub be passed, Withdraw, lest you suffer among the Puritans, We entreat you to send away this inclosed Letter to Master Anderton inclosed, to some trusty friend, that it may be carried safely without suspition, for it concerns the Common safety; So desire your friends in Coven[t] Garden, January 4. (E28; my brackets) Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, explains the motivation of such a letter addressed to Bridgeman: to take away the reputation of the new councillors, who were preferred to places they had promised themselves, and were looked upon with singular estimation, and were most like to check the furious course they meant to run, two letters were produced in the House which had been the day before brought to the committee in London by Mr. Bridgeman, a member of the house of very good reputation … and of eminent learning in the law, [who] usually opposed their [the puritans’] extravagant proceedings, and had been one of those who dissented in the bill of attainder of the earl of Strafford, and had argued against the treason of the charge. 23 Only the enclosed letter was “intercepted” as such, meant for one ­A nderton, the name being a common one in Lancashire (a Catholic stronghold) where Bridgeman represented Wigan. Mr. Bridgeman had acquaintance with no such man [writes Hyde, referring to Anderton], and easily found by the style of his own letter

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  199 that it was only directed to him to bring somewhat to light, or to be able to accuse him of smothering some notable conspiracy; and therefore immediately carried his own letter, and the other, which he would not open, to the committee. 24 Hyde makes clear that Bridgeman enjoyed a sterling reputation, and the House called his actions of bringing the letters to light that of “an honest and a good commonwealthsman and patriot”—so Bridgeman’s credentials appeared strong all around. 25 Yet since he voted against the attainder of treason of Strafford and supported Laud’s church innovations, he was aligned with Catholic sympathizers. The enclosed letter addressed to Anderton, opened in committee, reads in part, Although many designes have been defeated, yet that of Ireland holds well …. we must bear with something in the Man [the king], his will is strong enough, as long as he is fed with hopes, the Woman [the queen] is true to us, and reall, Her Counsell about her is very good: I doubt not but to send you by the next very joyfull newes, for the present, our rich Enemies, Pym, Hampden, Strode, Hollis, and Haslerigg, are blemisht, challenged for no lesse then Treason: before I write next, we doubt not but to have them in the Tower, or their heads from their shoulders. The Solicitor [Oliver St. John], and [Nathaniel] Fynes, and [Walter] Earle, we must serve with the same sauce: And in the House of the Lords, [Edward Montagu, Viscount] Mandevill is touched, but [Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of] Essex, [Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of] Warwick, [William Fiennes, 8th Baron] Say, [Robert Greville, 2nd Baron] Brook, and [William, 5th Baron] Paget, must follow, or else we shall not be quiet. [Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount] Faulkland and [John] Culpepper, are friends to our side, at leastwise they will do us no hurt …. The mischievous Londoners, and Apprentices, may do us some hurt for present, but we need not much fear them …. Let us acquite our selves like men, for our Religion and Countrey, now or never. The Kings heart is Protestant, but our friends can perswade Him, and make Him beleeve any thing, He hates the Puritane party, and is made irreconcileable to that side …. Let our friends be incouraged, the work is more then half done. (E28) Hyde observes, These letters were no sooner read, (though the forgery was so gross that every discerning and sober person clearly discovered it,) but

200  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters many seemed much moved by them, and concluded that there was some desperate design against the Parliament which was not yet fully discovered. 26 Simonds D’Ewes was one of these and recorded his response in the House to the enclosed letter: whereas the gentleman who last spake [Edmund Waller] had termed this letter a paltry libel, I would admit it to be so, but yet I desire him withal to remember that the powder treason was discovered by a writing of less weight. … therefore, I desire that we may search this to the bottom, for we see that the author of it had blood on his tongue and malice in his pen. 27 Two days later D’Ewes is again put in mind of the letters: the two letters [that] were sent to this house (by which I meant the letter sent to Mr. Bridgeman with the enclosed directed to Mr. ­A nderton), which I accounted one of the greatest discoveries we have had this parliament, I believe now … was merely one step of a design or plot hatched by the papists and prelates. 28 This brings us to their publication: the letters were read on January 11 (the entire text of both letters given in the record), and ordered to be sent to the Lords the same day “to do therein as they shall think fit; it being a Service performed to the whole Parliament.”29 No subsequent discussion of the letters in the Lords or Commons is on record, however. There is no express order to print, but Sheila Lambert includes the publication in her Printing by Parliament because the letters appeared under the imprint of Joseph Hunscott, who took over from John Thomas as the favored parliamentary printer in December 1641.30 It was also printed belatedly in August 1642, included in Hunscott’s printing of the official A Declaration and Resolution of the Lords and Commons in Parliament (1642, Aug. 16 T / E1318).31 Indeed, if one considers the letter to Anderton as a genuine letter (as some MPs at the time evidently did), it was the first intercepted letter ordered to be printed by the Long Parliament. Richard Ward in his Vindication of the Parliament and Their Proceedings (1642, Oct. 15T) strengthens its authority as an authentic letter later in the year by loosely using events subsequent to those of January as proof: The two Letters sent to Mr. Bridgeman, Jan. 14. [i.e., Jan. 4] 1641. and to Mr. Anderton, which intimated some sudden, sad and ­sorrowfull blow to be intended against the Puritanes in and about the Citie of London … which (considering many passages in the State since) seeme not to be faigned or forged.32 (9–10)

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  201 All indications suggest that these letters were effectively published by ­ arliament; and although the publication was no doubt intended to beP smirch the character of Bridgeman, it does not do so in a direct way. The date given to the first letter, January 4, was intentional, since it was the day Charles attempted to arrest the five MPs John Pym, John ­Hampden, William Strode, Denzil Holles, and Arthur Hesilrige—all mentioned by name in the letter to Anderton; the letter to Anderton was framed to anticipate the arrest that afternoon. Hence, the letter conveys the appearance of prior plotting, though it was composed after the fact (it was brought by Bridgeman to the committee on January 11 immediately after he had received it). The letter to Anderton also implicates other MPs, so much so that John Culpepper, mentioned in the letter, felt obliged in session to protest his innocence—that “he neither was nor ever would be for the popish party but would be ready to spend his blood for the true religion against popery.”33 The letters were obviously meant to work within the extensive complex of anti-Catholic opinion, within the fear of conspiracy, rebellion, and city tumult. The location of the putative writer of the letter to B ­ ridgeman is given as Covent Garden, a district well known as ­Catholic.34 But besides the discovery of the undetailed danger the letters bring to light, the publication is ambiguous as far as Bridgeman was concerned. Was the publication meant to show Catholic plotting implicating Bridgeman? Bridgeman was after all the one who brought the letters to Parliament’s attention in the first place. In print letters of this sort, fictional or authentic, giving the correspondents’ names in the publication is usually meant to incriminate both. Is this letter, therefore, working in accordance with or counter to the typical associative mechanisms whereby correspondents are coupled as collaborators through the bond of epistolary exchange? Moreover, the letter addressed to Bridgeman resembles the letter warning William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, of the ­Gunpowder Plot; and, like Monteagle, Bridgeman brought the letter to the attention of the authorities.35 Yet Bridgeman is clearly not celebrated as a hero in Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman. Prefatory or explanatory material might have erased the associative potential of the letters—that is, of Bridgeman’s complicity—but the letters are printed with no such ­apparati, which were commonly appended to similar letters to set the context of the exchange and frame the meaning of the letters. Bridgeman was assumed guiltless by other MPs during session, but this broadside offers nothing to exonerate Bridgeman. This publication therefore appears to involve Bridgeman in the exchange processes and, therefore, in the plotting. Even though he voted to impeach Strafford, Bridgeman had opposed the attainder for treason against him and so was therefore condemned as one of the 59 “Straffordians,” the “enemies to their country.”36 Although some MPs at the time believed the letter to Anderton was an authentic one, John Nalson, writing in 1683, is certain it is a fabricated letter:

202  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters It was the strangest fortune in the World certainly, that these Men of the Faction had, that when ever they stood in need of a Plot to countenance their designs, and to stir up the People to Sedition, some kind Person or other, was sure to furnish them with one or more as there was occasion; for … in the very Critical Juncture of time, a Letter was produced in the House of Commons and there read, and immediately Communicated to the House of Lords.37 As with his commentary on Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips, Nalson emphasizes the momentous cultural effect of Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman: these Letters quickly got into Print, and contributed not a little by those cursed Reflexions, with which they were stuffed, to blacken the Reputation of the King and Queen, and confirm the Credulous Multitude in the belief of a great and horrid Plot of the Papists and Episcopal Protestants against the Parliament. 38 Nalson suggests, again, that the immediate cultural impact of this letter dislodged investigation into its authenticity. Among the other intercepted and discovered letters that reveal plots to destroy London and Parliament printed during January are those in A Great Conspiracy of the Papists against the Worthy Members of Both Houses of Parliament … Discovered by Divers Wicked and Bloody Letters, Which by Gods Providence Came to Light and Was Read in the House of Commons the 10. and 11. of January, 1641 (1642 / G1681). The subtitle is misleading: this pamphlet also contains the Bridgeman and Anderton letters, which were read in Parliament, but the other two letters included in the pamphlet were not. Of these two letters, the more significant in Great Conspiracy of the Papists is described as “directed out of Ireland to a great personage of this City[,] a Papist, which Letter by accident coming into the hand of a woman, and the housekeeper of this Papist … caused the Letter to be opened.” The preface ensures readers recognize that through “the great Providence of God, the secrets thereof was disclosed.” The letter reads, Out of the care of your welfare, I make bold to advertise you for your good, that you would be pleased speedily to convey your selfe and Family out of the City, & that you repaire as farre Northward as conveniently you may, for there is a terrible and suddaine blow expected to be given shortly against the City of London, for though I am of opinion the Kings Majesty be a good Protestant in his heart, yet I am perswaded that by the perswasions of the Queens Majesty, and the advice of the Catholique Lords and other Gentlemen, the wished designe may take full effect. 39 (A3v [missigned as A2])

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  203 This letter, in fact, rehearses some of the attitudes of the letter to Anderton (“I am of opinion the Kings Majesty be a good Protestant in his heart”; “the perswasions of the Queens Majesty, and the advice of the Catholique Lords and other Gentlemen”). This letter was also printed in A Plott against the Citie of London Discovered by a Letter Brought to the Committee of Both Houses of Parliament Sitting at Grocers-Hall in London on Saturday January 8, 1641 (1642 / P2591). Plott against the Citie also contains bona fide parliamentary resolutions, namely the P ­ rotestation of May 1641 and subsequent, related resolutions—all of which concern the welfare of the city; the common denominator of the real resolutions and the most likely fake letter is indeed the safety of London. Matters of Note Made Known to All True Protestants, First, the Plot against the City of London Discovered by a Letter Found by White-Hall and Brought to the Committee of Both Houses of Parliament Sitting Then at Grocers-Hall in London the 8. of January 1641 Being Sent to [a] Papist (1642 / M1308) contains the same letter and elaborates by relating “The manner how the Papists intended to effect this plot” (2), whereas Plott against the Citie offers no detail. The letter in Matters of Note is followed by a variety of largely factual news reports, including the attempt of Charles to arrest the five members.40 New Matters of Note Made Known to This Kingdome (1642 / N667) contains “A most strange letter which was found in the old change. Jan. 18. and directed with a crosse to the right Reverend Father in God, Mathew Wren,” a discovered letter that is also manifested in its own pamphlet, A Most Strange Letter Which Was Found in the Old-Change the 18. Day of Jan. and Directed with This Mark, ✚ to the Right Reverent Father in God Matthew, Lord Bishop of Ely (1642 / M2923-A)— like the letter to Bridgeman sent as if from Covent Garden. Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely, had been impeached and in the Tower since the previous December (Wren determined “to harry puritanism and to ensure conformity”). The unnamed letter writers mourn Wren’s imprisonment: “The late misfortunes that have lately befaln you, have made us something afraid”; yet Wren has “so good an Advocate as she [the queen] is, that we make no question of your delivery” (A2).41 The letter writers go on to assure Wren that the king of France will soon intervene. In fact, some of the text of the letter bears striking—likely intentional—similarity to the letter attributed to Robert Philip in Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips, for instance the passage, The common people are so rude … I think that if they could, they would even pull her [the queen] from her regall throne, but I much wonder at the King of France that he doth suffer these things to bee done.42 (A2–A2v)

204  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters The purpose of this fake letter was to implicate Wren in general ­Catholic intrigue, which includes the threat of French invasion, an attack on ­London, and even the complicity of the queen herself—all of which was suggested in the previously published Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips.43 These letters, in their various print manifestations, reveal that ­Catholics have plotted to destroy Parliament and to invade the city. Some vaguely outline a scheme but others are an advance warning to the recipient, an intentional reiteration of the anonymous letter received by Monteagle, alerting him of the Gunpowder Plot. Many fake intercepted and discovered letters indeed exploit the Gunpowder Plot as a point of reference, perpetuating the narrative of Catholic conspiracy—as D’Ewes did when arguing for the authenticity of the Bridgeman and Anderton letters in session. Although all of these letters appear to be fake and are unofficial publications (though in support of Parliament), Letter ­Directed to Master Bridgeman was printed by Parliament and other authentic intercepted letters of royalists ordered by Parliament into print that same year were given similar titles, such as Severall Letters from the Committees in Several Counties … with an Intercepted Letter from Sir Edward Fitton to Sir Thomas Aston at York Discovering a Fowl Designe of the Malignant Party (1642 / S2775-A) and The Discovery of a Great and Wicked Conspiracy against This Kingdome in Generall and the City of London in Particular (1642, Nov. 28 / G1303D-E).44 The same sensationalistic titling strategies continued to be used in officially printed intercepted letters, for example, A Cunning Plot to Divide and Destroy the Parliament and the City of London (1644, Jan. 16 / C7586).45 It would have indeed been difficult for a reader at the time to sort out authentic intercepted and discovered letters from fictional ones. Interreferentiality among printed intercepted letters was a procedure used to develop particular narratives as they were perceived within those letters, a practice occurring, as we have seen in Chapter 1, as early as 1642. The persistent referencing and re-referencing of letters—even the republication and recontextualizing of previous published letters—soon became routine when it came to intercepted, captured, and discovered letters. I have called the subspecies of print letter that repurpose older publications “print letters redux” and such publications include recontextualized intercepted letters. The official The Discovery of a Great and Wicked Conspiracy against This Kingdome in Generall and the City of London in Particular (1642, Nov. 28 / G1303D-E) and a publication of six years later, the unofficial The True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague in Holland to a Great Nobleman in England (1648, Mar. 10T / T2622), constitute a pair of printed intercepted letters that illustrates this phenomenon. On November 26, 1642, intercepted letters coming from The Hague were brought into the Commons, two of which were unsigned but were “thought to come from Mr. [Thomas]

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  205 Webb, Secretary to [James Stuart,] the Duke of Lenos [i.e., Lennox] and Richmond,” one of which was addressed to Secretary Edward ­Nicholas; a conference with the Lords and publication with observations were ­requested by the Commons; the Lords concurred the same day but indicated that only one of the letters—the letter to Nicholas—was to be printed.46 This letter contains details of assistance for the king from abroad, including money, soldiery, and arms. Some newsbook accounts give thorough summaries of the intercepted letters, while the synopsis in Speciall Passages and Certain Informations from Severall Places incorporates antiroyalist diatribe (the letter was “a happy discovery of the Cavaliers villany, intending the ruine of this Kingdome”).47 The report of the letter in the Lords was tied to “the preventing of landing and coming in of Foreign Forces,” and the subsequent commentary in Speciall Passages reflects this fear.48 Even though George Goring was nowhere in the Commons or Lords Journals indicated as the author of the letter that eventually saw print—it was “thought to come from Mr. [Thomas] Webb”—when the letter was officially published as Discovery of a Great and Wicked Conspiracy, concluding remarks on how the letter was intercepted indicate that “This letter (as is supposed) was writ by Collonell Goring” ([A4]).49 Goring was indeed at The Hague during this time recruiting for the king, and was among those attempting to land soldiers and supplies in Newcastle. 50 But Goring’s biographer, Florene Memegalos, does not mention this letter. The attribution in the pamphlet likely stemmed from antipathy toward Goring as a result of his turncoating a few months earlier. This same letter was reprinted in March 1648 as True Copy of a L ­ etter Sent from The Hague in Holland to a Great Nobleman in ­England but modified to fit the new context: the order from Parliament to print included on the title page of 1642’s Discovery of a Great and Wicked Conspiracy was slightly altered in 1648’s True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague—instead of concluding with parliamentary clerk John Browne’s genuine order to print and a date of November 26, 1642, True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague concludes with a spurious parliamentary order to print: “Imprimatur, G. M.” (Gilbert Mabbott, who became deputy licenser in March 1646). 51 The date of the original letter was omitted in True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague, and some of the individuals specified in the 1642 letter (Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland; Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex) are given generic designations in the 1648 text (“a great person,” “the general” [3, 4]). Sloppy revision of the earlier pamphlet is betrayed when the unnamed recipient, identified as “a great Nobleman in England” on the title page, is in the text following the letter identified, as in 1642, as Nicholas—though he was in exile in France by March 1648 and therefore not in England. 52 The 1642 letter was recycled and some of its text and textual apparati adjusted to respond to renewed civil war in early 1648; in particular,

206  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague might have been inspired by, or intended to serve as direct support for, the Declaration of the Vote of No Addresses and the resulting official publication, A Declaration of the Commons of England in Parliament Assembled (1648, Feb. 15 / E2559-aA), which in part details the king’s past endeavors to bring in foreign forces.53 This is of course the fundamental story in the letter in both its manifestations: the narrative of foreign military threat. Another set of narratives developed during 1642 was Parliament’s chronicles of the deeds of Charles’s evil counselors. On February 14, 1642, Pym reported to the Commons that a committee composed of members of both houses had opened a packet of intercepted letters; among the letters were three by George Digby: one to Secretary ­Nicholas, one to Lewis Dives, and one to the queen, all dated January 21, 1642. 54 Five days later, John Evelyn reported his committee’s evaluation of the letters and their investigation into Digby, observing That the Lord Digby hath laboured to raise a Jealousy between the King and his People. … And then his own Letters out of Holland; wherein he first scandalizeth the Parliament, calling them “Traitors that bear the Sway:” By which must be meant the Parliament. … They observe likewise, out of those Letters, that he hath persuaded the King to retire to a Place of a Strength, to protect his Servants; where the Words are, “If the King declare himself, and betake himself to a Place of Strength where he may protect his Servants, I shall serve the King as well from hence as from any Part of England, over and above the Service I may do him here.”—Then his Expression, “That if the King betake himself to a Way of Accommodation, by His Absence, it will be for the King’s Advantage,” &c. By which Letters he doth absolutely scandalize the Person of the King. Of the three letters taken, Evelyn appears to quote largely from Digby’s letter to Dives throughout his speech, and the same day the Commons resolved to attaint Digby of high treason. 55 Two days later the official A Message from Both Houses of Parliament … Touching Certain Letters Lately Intercepted … Sent from the Lord Digby to the Queens Majestie (1642, Feb. 21 / E1649-A, -B) was printed—underscoring Digby’s letter to the queen on the title page rather than Digby’s letter to Dives. 56 This document explains the justification for opening the letters but does not print them. Soon after March 7, however, Two Letters of Note, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queene, the Other of a Late Overthrow Which the English Gave the Rebells in Ireland (1642 / B4779-A) appeared, an unofficial publication with no printer’s name given.57 Since it was ordered on February 14 “That the Clerk shall not give the Copy of any of the Letters written from the Lord Digby, to any Man, nor suffer any

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  207 Man to take any Copies of them,” it is hard to imagine that the letter from Digby to the queen slipped into print unless sanctioned at a high level—and neither the Commons nor the Lords ordered that the publication required suppression. 58 The leaked letter was not Digby’s letter to Dives, the one from which Evelyn principally quoted in session, but rather Digby’s letter to the queen, since this communication better tied Henrietta Maria and Digby together as the chief evil counselors to the king. Digby’s letter to Dives eventually found official publication a few months later in The Declaration or Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons … with Divers Depositions and Letters thereunto Annexed (1642), but Digby’s letter to the queen projected a more damning depiction of an anti-Parliament Catholic confederacy with Henrietta Maria at its head.59 Digby’s letter also yielded a fictional response as if from the queen, which I examined in Chapter 1. Other individuals close to the king and queen were drawn into the evil counselors narrative, among them Henry Wilmot, William Croft, and Henry Jermyn. During the morning of July 1, 1642, Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland, informed the Lords that a letter from Wilmot in England to Croft in Holland had been intercepted; the letter was shared with the Commons at a conference later that morning.60 The same day, MP William Whittaker acquainted the Commons with letters of news from Rotterdam and Amsterdam pertaining to preparations for war and the coming over of forces, Prince Rupert, Prince Maurice, and Digby among them; after the conference, Pym reported to the Commons the letter intercepted from Wilmot, and Pym was ordered to prepare a preface to be printed with the letter.61 Likewise, Dudley, 3rd Baron North, reported to the Lords after the conference of “some L ­ etters from Rotterdam,” and one “Letter, dated 1º July, 1642, at Rotterdam, ­directed to Mr. Myles Corbett” was read; on July 4, the Commons requested the Rotterdam and Amsterdam letters back so they could also be printed.62 One of the publications that resulted was A Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter to M. William Crofts at The Hague Intercepted at Sea (1642 / W2885), a broadside.63 The intercepted letter reads in full, By these last Letters to the Queene, you will finde a great alteration of businesse here; the King, that very lately appeared almost abandoned by all His Subjects, is now become the Favourite of the Kingdome; yet I beleeve His Enemies are not so neglected as not to be able to raise an Army to oppose Him: and indeed here lies the jest, for they will be followed just enough to forfeit their estates, which I have heard you often say, were better bestowed on some of us. Yesterday there came a Messenger from the House, who had Order, (and did raise the power of the County) to entreat [John] Bartley, [John] Ashburnham, and my selfe, to come to speake to the House;

208  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters but the King gave the Messenger a short Answer, and an Officer or two gave him a short Cudgell, so he is returned to London (a fine Gentleman) with his Arme in a Scarfe. Deare Will, preserve me in your good opinion, for I assure you I am, June 22. Yorke 1642

Your most affectionate humble servant,

H. WILMOT. Pray if M. Jermin be with you, present my most humble service to him. The letter printed is substantively the same as that recorded in the Lords Journal but with one key exception: there is no postscript to tie Jermyn to Wilmot and Crofts. Although it is possible that the postscript was inadvertently omitted by a clerk in transcription, it seems more likely that the postscript was added by Pym upon preparing the letter for publication.64 Indeed, the momentum of Pym’s preface to the letter is precisely to tie these evil counselors together. The preface to the broadside begins, Amongst other Evidences of the disposition and designes of those in credit about the KING and QUEENE, a Letter was intercepted at Sea … written by M. Henry Wilmot, one of those who were privy to the conspiracy of M. Jermin and others, about bringing up the Army the last yeere; and directed to M. William Crofts a servant of the Queene’s. Versions of the letter in other publications replicate the questionable postscript.65 The preface and postscript added to the Wilmot letter also tie Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter to M. William Crofts to another ­publication resulting from the letters discussed during the July 1 and 4 sessions: Two Letters from Rotterdam Dated July 1. [&] 4. Stilo Novo, 1642, Wherin Is Discovered a Most Divelish and Desperate Designe Contrivd by the Lord Digby, Captaine Hide, Sir Lewis Dives, Mr. Jermin, Mr. Percy, and Other Fugitive Traytors (1642, July 6 / T3462).66 It consists of two letters of news from an unnamed foreign correspondent—called in the Lords’ report “a private Gentleman, that wishes well to his Country”— addressed to MP Miles Corbet.67 The two Rotterdam letters concern the preparations of Prince Rupert, Prince Maurice, Digby, Jermyn and others to sail to northern England, and catalog the armaments they are bringing. Another official parliamentary publication of the same time in fact intentionally associates all of these disparate letters by c­ ombining them into a single publication. Three Letters of Dangerous Consequence Read at a Conference of Both Houses of Parliament, the Two First from Rotterdam … the Other from M. Wilmot to M. Crofts … in Which

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  209 Appeares a Desperate Designe of the L. Digby, Cap. Hide, Sir Lewis Dives, M. Jermin. M. Percy, and Divers Cavileeres against the Parliament of England (1642 / T1096) cements the relationships between these individuals by publishing all three letters together as a unit, the theme of the letters being that all came from or were going to Holland, even though the Wilmot letter was clearly not about foreign invasion or even about the king mustering a domestic army.68 Pym takes latitude in interpreting a passage in Wilmot’s letter in his preface to Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter. Wilmot writes that the King … is now become the Favourite of the Kingdome; yet I beleeve His Enemies are not so neglected as not to be able to raise an Army to oppose Him: and indeed here lies the jest, for they will be followed just enough to forfeit their estates, which I have heard you often say, were better bestowed on some of us. This is construed by Pym to mean “that they have had often conferences of dividing the estates of the Parliament-men, and that this is the use they intend to make of the Forces raised by His Majesty” (my italics). There is no mention of any forces raised for the king in Wilmot’s letter; this is contained only in the Rotterdam letters. But Pym’s preface effectively ties the Wilmot letter to the Rotterdam letters, and this drive is reiterated in Three Letters of Dangerous Consequence. When A Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament—an organ sympathetic to Parliament—­ reported on the Wilmot letter, characterizing it as “being full of jeeres and derision against the Parliament, and expressing how that they intend, if the forces which his Majesty is raising goes on, and takes effect, to divide the estates of the Parliament men amongst themselves,” it largely reiterates Pym’s preface.69 These pamphlets collectively demonstrate how intercepted letters were reconfigured, yoked together, and reoriented to construct a predetermined perception—in this case, to tell the story of a coherent group of plotting cavaliers seeking to plunder the estates of MPs. Another of Digby’s intercepted letters to the queen was printed in early August, published officially in Two Letters, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queenes Majesty, the Other from Mr. Thomas Eliot to the Lord Digby, with Observations upon the Same Letters (1642, Aug. 5, 6 / B4781-4).70 On July 30, an intercepted packet of letters was brought to the Lords by the Earl of Essex, sent to him by the Earl of Warwick, a packet directed to William Boswell and taken at sea; the packet was communicated to the Commons the same day.71 There were several letters in the packet besides Digby’s to the queen and Eliot’s to Digby; one was from King Charles to the queen. On the next day came an order to print only A Copy of a Letter, of the Lord Digbye’s Hand, sent to the Queen; Mr. Tho. Eliott’s Letter to the Lord Digbye; [and] a Note of Arms

210  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters sent for by the King from Amsterdam … [with] the Committee for the Defence of the Kingdom to prepare a Preamble, and to make some Observation upon these Letters.72 Summaries of the king’s letter, however, were printed elsewhere.73 Contemporary print accounts of the intercepted letters suggest that they contained “no great matter of secresie, or moment in them,” that they were “of no great consequence,” and either do not mention Digby’s letter to the queen or else mention it only in passing as “being sent a good while since” (Digby’s letter to the queen bore a date of March 10, while Eliot’s letter to Digby was dated May 27).74 Parliament opted to include only the letters to and from Digby, and not the king’s letter to the queen, likely to preserve the perception that king himself was not malignant. This is certainly the momentum of the observations on the Eliot and Digby letters in the official Two Letters: “we have desired … that they [Digby and the queen] might not have the favor of the Court, and such a powerfull influence, upon his Majesties Councells, as they have had” (3).75 The damning passages in both letters are helpfully emphasized in the pamphlet, and the observations likewise refer to Digby’s advice to the king not to accommodate with Parliament so as not “to loose that prey, the estates of the Parliament-men, and other good Subjects” (4). This remark picks up the narrative of Three Letters of Dangerous Consequence and Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter to M. William Crofts, though the property of MPs is never mentioned or even alluded to in either Digby’s or Eliot’s letters. Rather, in his letter to Digby, Eliot requests Digby to intercede for him with the queen in order to secure him a position as a groom of the king’s bedchamber. The observations on the letters in this pamphlet also hearken back to the letters “heretofore Printed by our direction” (4)—Digby’s letter to the queen published officially in The Declaration or Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons … with Divers Depositions and Letters Thereunto Annexed (and unofficially in Two Letters of Note) as a reminder. Digby acknowledged his intercepted letters and defended them in The Lord George Digbies Apologie for Himselfe (Oxford, 1643, Jan. 4 / B4761). In particular, Digby defends his language against those who had interpreted it otherwise: In my letter to the Queene, at her first comming into Holland [of January 21, 1642], it was observ’d, that in that expression, [of welcoming her from a Country not worthy of her] I shewed much venime and rancour to my owne Nation. I meant it not, and must appeale to those who are best acquainted with the Civility of language, whether the addresse might not be comely to any Lady of quality, who should upon any not pleasing occasion, leave one Country for a while to reside in another.76 (14)

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  211 In other words, the phrase was characteristic of a letter of compliment. Digby continues: For the charge of boldnesse, and presumption in some expressions of those letters … since the suspicion of that depends upon the right understanding of language, and connexion of words; it will be no disrespect to any, through whose hands they have passed, to beleeve, that as they were otherwise intended by me, so that they are capable of other Interpretation …. If in any of those letters there were any expression of discontent or bitternesse, I shall say little more, then that they passed an examination they were not prepared for, and fell into hands that they were not directed to. (14–15) Digby indicts the very act of interpretation: any letter, he argues, may be misinterpreted, but his letter also had the misfortune to be intercepted by those with an intention to interpret it maliciously.77 A response to Digby’s epistolary apologetics came in An Answer to The Lord George Digbies Apology for Himself (1643, Mar. 2T / A3421) where the pseudonymous author (Theophilus Philanax Gerusiphilus Philalethes Decius) criticizes Digby’s argument that his language was mere epistolary compliment, commenting on the lack of a good excuse of the faults [that] have been found in some expressions of your Letters. I shall instance but one, not in respect of the unworthy you therein put upo[n] your Countrey (which not withstanding I conceive will be judged by those to whom you appeal, to have been but a wild piece of civility to asperse a whole Nation, especially your own, with the fault of some few, and this in an addresse to a Lady of so great eminence, and of another Nation not much given to overvalue ours). (43) The dispute revolves in part around epistolary decorum; the author ­suggests that even intercepted letters such as Digby’s to the queen, those not bearing directly on military or strategic matters, could be put under intense scrutiny in order to wring from them their authors’ sincere thoughts. Political capital in the form of damning cultural narratives was made of such letters in the process.

1643: The King’s Intercepted Letters and Charles’s Response Parliament intercepted several letters of the king during 1642 and 1643, but did not publish every one or even open every letter that was intercepted.

212  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters When letters of the king fell into the hands of the Commons during July 1642, they did not open those “which were sealed with the King’s private Seal, out of Respect of his Majesty,” while other letters of the king were read in early January 1643 but not ordered to be printed.78 Letters of the king were sometimes taken along with other correspondence but not printed along with the others: no letter of the king, for instance, appears in Two Letters, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queenes Majesty, the Other from Mr. Thomas Eliot to the Lord Digby even though a letter from the king to the queen had been seized in this interception. The king’s intercepted letters, however, began to be printed by Parliament in May 1643. In late January 1643, General Thomas Fairfax relayed to Parliament a packet of letters that had been sent under a false cover to John Campbell, 1st Earl of Loudoun, which contained a letter from the king to the queen dated January 23, 1643; the Commons read the letter on January 30 and ordered it to be printed with a concluding commentary.79 The same day, however, the Lords having been apprised of the letter, respited its publication, indicating “That it is not fit to be printed at this time,” and gave order that no copies were to be made, an order with which the Commons concurred.80 Reports of the letters’ interception and broad summary appeared in a few newsbooks, however.81 A few months later, on March 10, another intercepted letter from the king to the queen bearing the date March 2 was brought to the Commons; there was no order to print, but it was also summarized in newsbooks.82 On May 5 it was ordered that in a printed declaration relating to the failed treaty at Oxford “Mention shall be made of the [January 23] Letter sent from the King to the Queen, and intercepted, concerning the disposing of the great Offices of the Kingdom; and that this Letter be printed with this Declaration.”83 Both letters of Charles to Henrietta Maria were in fact printed in the resulting publication, The Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace Together with Severall Letters of His Majesty to the Queen and of Prince Rupert to the Earle of Northampton, Which Were Intercepted and Brought to the Parliament (1643 / P3571).84 A few names remained enciphered in the January 23 letter, and roughly a quarter of the March 2 letter was printed still in cipher.85 Included also were two letters from Prince Rupert to Spencer Compton, 2nd Earl of Northampton, dated March 2 and 3; Northampton was killed in battle on March 19, the letters found in his pocket afterward.86 The letters are discussed in the Declaration that concludes Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace. The January 23 letter, in which Charles is seeking the queen’s advice on the disposing of high places, is cast as an instance of Charles’s uxoriousness to tie the queen-as-evil-counselor narrative to the popish-conspiracy narrative: His Majesties power … is too much steered and guided by the ­advice of these secret and wicked Councellors, that have been the

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  213 Instruments of our present miseries …. it did appear unto them [the Lords and Commons] by a Letter written by His Majesty to the Queen … that the great and eminent places of the Kingdom were disposed by her advice and power, and what Her Religion is, and consequently how prevalent the Councells of Papists and Jesuites will be with Her, may be easily conjectured. (83) Of the king’s duplicitous plotting, the second letter of March 2 is used as evidence, where the king writes that “so many fine designes are laid open to Us, We know not which first to undertake” (76), which was interpreted to mean the design upon Bristol, the betrayal of Scarborough castle, and the attempted betrayal of Killingworth castle (92 [mispaginated as 102]). Moreover, presenting the letters partly in cipher emphasizes the cabalistic—and therefore, the secret, dangerous—nature of royalist correspondence; a newsbook report of early April 1643 indicates that the discovery of letters in cipher “occasioned a Declaration, that whosoever writ in Figures, that no key could open … that their Letters should be taken full of Malignancie against the Parliament and peace of the Kingdome.”87 The connection between royalist letter writing and ciphering was forged, and was consistently reiterated though a narrative of royalist treachery when intercepted and captured correspondence was subsequently printed.88 Several newsbooks reported the publication of Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace and some echoed the attitudes of the pamphlet. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, for instance, quotes passages from the Declaration and the January 23 letter in full, underscoring the same ­narratives in the process of its lengthy commentary.89 Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages refers to “the Jesuiticall faction about her Majesty,” while Perfect Diurnall summarizes the first letter, mentions the Declaration, and supports the narrative of the domineering queen: “preferring of all the said Lords and Gentlemen is referred to the Queenes pleasure.”90 Mercurius Civicus adds that the letters of the king to queen, “being matters of great and dangerous consequence, may conduce much to the convincing of those who have hitherto beene malignant to the proceedings of Parliament.”91 What Parliament designated as Charles’s treacherous language in the March 2 letter was picked up in later newsbooks to identify any sort of royalist plotting that subsequently came to light as one of Charles’s “fine designes.”92 The king’s rejoinder to Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace was His Majesties Declaration to All His Loving Subjects in Answer to a Declaration of the Lords and Commons upon the Late Treaty of Peace and Severall Intercepted Letters of His Majesty to the Queene and of Prince Rupert to the Earl of Northampton (Oxford, 1643 / C2232).93 King Charles’s express response to the publication of his letters to the

214  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters queen is that “He cannot but deplore the Condition of the Kingdome when Letters of all Sorts of Husbands to Wives, even of His Majesty to His Royall Consort are intercepted, read, brought in Evidence, and publisht to the world” (26). Charles does not suggest that Parliament’s interpretations of the letters were in error, but rather that Parliament was hypocritical to condemn breaches of a treaty they themselves had contravened: some letters were intercepted, by which, they say, it probably appears to them, that His Majesty had then designes upon Killingworth, Scarborough, and Bristoll. But His Majesty thinks it strange that it should be expected, That this Treaty should have so much influence on one side and so little on the other. (45) The ways in which Parliament itself violated the treaty follow. In Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace, the concluding Declaration indicates that Parliament wishes “to encline His Royall heart, really to act what he hath so often verbally professed” (77); Charles’s actions do not correspond to what he expresses, for instance, in his letters to the queen. However, when responding to the Proceedings and the letters it contains, Charles states in His Majesties Declaration that “The Hearts of Kings are inscrutable” (3). The statement is derived from ­Proverbs 25:2–3: It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable. Besides invoking the divine right of kings, the statement is also a ­ anifestation of the arcana imperii topos.94 Yet Charles also writes in m response to the printing of his letters, in His Majesties most private Letters, to the Person neerest to Him, wherein He cannot (as by some in his publique Declarations He is) be suspected to say any thing out of Designe or Policy, His own cleare perswasion that the Rebells, and not He, have been the Cause and are the Fosterers of this Warre and universall Distraction; and His Sense of it, and his Desire of the end of it, are so plainly express’t, that they will by this Accident be much satisfied with His Majesties Innocence and Reality [i.e., sincerity], and beleeve that the reading this in such a Letter, is the very next Degree to reading it in His Heart. (27–28)

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  215 This statement suggests that a king’s heart is indeed legible and therefore contradicts the arcana imperii topos exploited elsewhere in the ­pamphlet. Perhaps this inconsistency resulted from forcing the defenders of Charles to handle a novel phenomenon—the intercepted letters of a king in print—in a media where all sorts of intercepted letters were increasingly published. Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace and His Majesties Declaration together reveal the intensification of printed intercepted letters as a crucial field of ideological contestation. Along with Digby’s defense of his intercepted letters in Lord George Digbies Apologie for Himselfe, Charles’s vindication of his letters in His Majesties Declaration demonstrates that the powerful persuasive force of printed intercepted letters needed to be countered. Partisan newsbooks also participated more and more in such contention and were perhaps even more influential in forming public opinion: they reported on the interception and reading of letters by Parliament, and sometimes on the availability of intercepted letters in pamphlet form; newsbooks also printed intercepted letters in part or in full. All such public participation was in direct contrast to the arcana imperii, a model of power that Charles wished to preserve but which was becoming increasingly untenable.

Royalists Printing Intercepted Letters Royalists printed far fewer intercepted letters compared to P ­ arliament and belatedly at that, a delay due in part to the disinclination of Charles’s secretary of state until September 1643, Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount ­Falkland, to open intercepted letters.95 The first pamphlet printed was Certaine Letters Sent from Sir John Hotham, Young Hotham … and Others Intercepted and Brought to Court to His Majestie, April 16 (Oxford, 1643 / H2903), a collection of six letters, including three from Hotham the elder and two from Hotham the younger. The first letter, from Hotham the elder, is addressed to Pym and is probably the letter written in response to Pym’s letter ordered by the Commons, “a Letter of Thanks to Sir Jo. Hotham, for his Care and Industry.”96 The preface to the intercepted letters in the pamphlet reads in whole, “These Intercepted Letters which we here impart to thee are exactly printed without the least alteration of word or spelling from the Originalls which the Printer hath in his custody under the Authors owne hands and seales” ([Av]). The publication was supported by a report in that week’s M ­ ercurius Aulicus, composed principally by John Berkenhead, where significant passages from the letters are quoted and reference made to the entire letters “which are since printed.”97 Another intercepted parliamentary letter printed a few months later is Master Pyms Letter to Sir John Hotham (York, 1643 / P4269A), a broadsheet.98 It is presented with no introduction, marginal comments, or conclusion—only a couple of nota bene

216  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters indications in the margin to call attention to significant portions of the letter, such as Pym’s reference to the need “to innure the People to them [excise taxes] by little and little” and the number of men under the command of William Waller. Falconer Madan writes that this publication “was issued no doubt as a counterblast to the publication of the King’s intercepted letters to the Queen, by Parliament”—those in Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace.99 The next month Two Intercepted Letters from Sr. William Brereton to the Earle of Essex and M. Pym (Oxford, 1643 / B4373) appeared; its letters report parliamentary military losses. There is no prefatory material to frame the two letters, and only a single gloss is inserted in the margin of Brereton’s letter to Essex. The publication was also supported by Aulicus, which offers a straightforward, unbiased report and summarizes the letters’ contents, “Which Letters His Majestie caused to be this day [July 8] printed, and sent the originals by a Trumpeter to the Earle of Essex.”100 Two years later, Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle, the Earle of Lanerick [i.e., Lanark], Lord Warriston, and Others (Oxford, 1645 / A3661) was printed, comprised of 10 letters exchanged among Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll; William Hamilton, Earl of Lanark; and Archibald Johnston, Lord Wariston.101 Like the intercepted letters collections printed by royalists in 1643, these letters are prefaced by very little framing and none of it expressly ideological. The preface to Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle … and Others reads simply, The Reader may take notice that these Letters are printed exactly according to the Authours Spelling, without the least alteration of Word or Syllable: Most of them beare date at Edenburgh about the middle of March, and were superscribed to London, except that written by J[ohn] Meldrum in January to his friend in France, which therefore we place first; the rest follow according to their severall dates. ([Av]) Like Certaine Letters Sent from Sir John Hotham, Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle … and Others offers a factual, straightforward preface with an emphasis on the accuracy of the printing. The tendency of these four publications of intercepted letters is to present the correspondence accurately and to certify its authenticity. The strategy of the three 1643 publications, in particular, is not to frame or give the intercepted letters an ideological slant but rather to treat them as fact and not principally as instances of the enemy’s treachery. This may also be why the honorable act of sending the originals of the letters to the Earl of Essex is emphasized both in the title of Two Intercepted Letters from Sr. William Brereton and in Aulicus’ report.102 This is not to say that the intercepted letters royalists printed were never given

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  217 ideological framing, but in the case of Master Pyms Letter to Sir John Hotham and Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle … and Others this was undertaken by Berkenhead, who editorializes, for instance, on the latter collection, Sir Richard Wyllis … hath intercepted the very Scottish Poast himselfe, with his whole bundle of lamentable Epistles from the brethren in Scotland, in all which there is nothing but crying out for helpe against the most noble victorious [James Graham, 1st] Marquis of Montrosse.103 A few weeks later Aulicus refers again to the letters: “you may see at large [their recognition of Montrose’s military successes] under the cheife Rebels own hands in their letters (now printed) which are richly worth your reading.”104 To support Master Pyms Letter to Sir John Hotham, Berkenhead observes of the gradual imposition of excise taxes, “I hope the Subject will perceive by what fine degrees they have betrayed themselves to bondage” and criticizes Pym’s overestimation of the number of soldiers under Waller’s command.105 While royalists did not overtly and consistently frame the relatively few intercepted letters they printed as pamphlets and broadsides to offer ideological critique, Parliament was quick to place the letters they intercepted into any number of damning cultural narratives; the great number of intercepted letters printed by Parliament was in fact remarked upon by Aulicus in late 1643: “intercepted Letters ‘tis so hackney with them, that every body knowes the way of it.”106 Royalists did not adopt the same strategy in prefacing intercepted letters, and were less apt to condemn any treachery or machination revealed by the letters; if a narrative was activated, it was that of royalist moral superiority or civility precisely by not presenting intercepted letters in the same fashion that Parliament did. Even a broadside such as A Letter Written Out of Bedfordshire unto the Earle of Manchester and Intercepted by One of His Majesties Scouts (Oxford, 1643 / L1766) offers nothing but the title to preface the letter.107 This letter, like the two in Two Intercepted Letters from Sr. William ­Brereton, relates the anonymous letter writer’s despondency—in this case, at the state of Parliament’s army. The letter writer underlines The Sadnesse of our condition (though I have been a long while silent) [which] enforceth me to write unto you, and againe become a suiter, that laying all other thoughts aside, you will be pleased to think of your own safety, upon whose depends ours that are your friends. The letter writer proceeds to explain that accounts of the parliamentary army’s strength were in error and its reported victories were in fact

218  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters successes of Charles’s army. The letter would seem to be fictitious as it offers too much censure of Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester, and too much praise of the king—for instance in the lines, I must aske your pardon for that I can be no longer of your Opinion, To omitt all other of the Kings, or rather Heavens Scourges of us, who have boasted so much of our strengths, a lessen for all men to learne, to beware of that hand that strikes with the Sword of Justice. Yet this letter may in fact be a royalist adaptation of genuine accounts sent to the Lords, for instance, of similar reports in two letters from Brickhill in Bedfordshire received by the Lords (where Manchester was presiding): one a July 9 letter from the Earl of Essex, in which he relates the military strength of the king; the other a July 20 letter from the ­council of war, who write in part, we have in Modesty forborn to press the Necessities of the Armies upon your Lordships so often as the Condition thereof required, till now that we are driven to that Exigent, that we can be no longer ­silent: We must, therefore, to discharge that Trust reposed in us, make known unto your Lordships, that the Army is much decayed very suddenly, partly by the Mortality and Sickness which hath befallen us, and which lieth still upon us, and partly for Want of Pay and Cloathing, our Soldiers being grown bare, and many of them almost naked.108 Letter Written Out of Bedfordshire may, in fact, be semifictional; its author may have modified factual news reports and genuine military accounts, intensifying them through a more incisive ideological positioning. A later publication, A True Copy of Divers Intercepted Letters Sent from the Committee at Derby-House to Lieut. Gen. Cromwell (1648, June 26 T / T2634), is a broadside subtitled “Published to requite their stopping of the Packets this week from France, and from the North.”109 Printed during and in the context of the royalist uprising in Kent of June 1648, the broadside consists of a piece of loyalist propaganda of the second civil war, though of the four letters in the broadside, two appear to be inauthentic, while the other two may have indeed been intercepted. The first of the letters, addressed to Oliver Cromwell from the Derby House Committee, has no clear analogue in the Derby House correspondence of June and in fact reads more like a generic letter of news than a dispatch of military instruction sent to Cromwell to deal with continuing royalist insurrection; the letter reports on Goring’s march north and on the Downs Mutiny of May in order to emphasize the ­royalist menace. Marginal annotations to this letter likewise stress royalist military might. The second letter also underlines the increasing royalist danger and a gloss on the letter hints that some of the letter in cipher

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  219 disguises “invective, and conclusive against the late recalled Members and enlarged Aldermen”—a reference to those individuals who were impeached by the Army but discharged in early June, which, as far as the royalists are concerned, was exactly what they desired.110 This letter is unsigned, but another annotation suggests it is by “Say, St. John, Pierrepont, or some other of the Juncto-Men” (William Fiennes, 8th Baron Saye and Sele; Oliver St. John; William Pierrepont)—a strategy which of course indicts all three at once. The last two letters in the broadside, by contrast, are authentic. The first of these is a letter sent initially to Speaker William Lenthall from the committee at York; it was recorded in the Commons on June 12 and ordered to be sent to the Derby House Committee.111 The letter reports on the strength of the royalist forces and its own army’s lack of military supplies, while an annotation to the letter in the broadside intensifies the threat by adding that the number of horse and soldiers “are now grown treble” than earlier reported and “within a while will be of strength to receive Fairfax’s whole Army.” After the committee at Derby House received this letter, the committee sent a copy of it to both Fairfax and Cromwell as an enclosure in their own letter—which is itself the last letter in True Copy of Divers Intercepted Letters Sent from the Committee at Derby-House.112 The publication ends with the genuine parliamentary order of June 12 to send the York committee letter to Derby House, which was also enclosed in the Derby House letter to Fairfax and to Cromwell. Printed to take vengeance on Derby House’s interception of letters, this broadside, containing a combination of real and fake letters, attempts to maneuver the powerful propagandistic image of intercepted letters to underscore the vigor of royalist revolt and the weakness of the Army’s forces, even though only the last two letters may have in fact been intercepted. Printing intercepted letter propaganda was relatively uncommon for royalists—even more so during the second civil war—and the narrative of royalist moral superiority when it comes to exploiting intercepted letters all but vanishes, as this publication bears much more resemblance to the sorts of ways Parliament had been utilizing intercepted letters in print for the prior six years. The inclusion of ciphers in the second of the fake letters (“The 687 743 or most of them 006 726 in the 785 21 53 177 756 Counsell with them”) is intended to recall Parliament’s habitual criticism of royalist ciphering and of the royalists’ penchant for cabalistic intrigue, but here the use of secret writing is instead attributed to the “Juncto-Men.” Some unusual manifestations of intercepted letters in print also ­occurred during the second civil war, namely, royalists printing their own intercepted letters—those that had been intercepted by Parliament beforehand—which royalists used to promote their own narratives. For example, on February 18, 1648, Parliament intercepted, among other letters, one from Princess Elizabeth to her father, Charles I, partly in

220  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters cipher.113 Parliament never ordered it printed; however, a portion of the letter not in cipher was printed in the royalist newsbook Mercurius Bellicus. After a passage in which editor John Berkenhead comments on Charles’s treatment “amongst the Caniballs” on the Isle of Wight, Berkenhead inserts the beginning of Elizabeth’s letter: Most Deare Father. The greatest terestriall joy, that can be to me, is to heare that you are in health, and prosperity, and nothing hath been such a terror to me, as that I have not heard from you so frequently as formerly, all that I have to support my thoughts is to conceive, that the letters are miscarried, &c.114 Berkenhead comments: “in conclusion of the letter, the high born Lady concludes with a pious, and pithie prayer for his Majestie … clos[ing] all with a direfull Anathema against all his cursed enemies” (3–4). The ­disinclination of Parliament to publish a letter demonstrating Elizabeth’s filial affection is no doubt similar to Parliament’s wish to downplay spousal love when selecting the letters to include in The Kings Cabinet Opened (1645, July 14T / C2358).115 In another instance, a letter of Charles going to the Scottish Parliament and army was taken on George Haliburton as reported to Parliament on August 26, 1648, in which Charles recognizes a declaration by, and considers a possible accommodation with, the Scottish Parliament and army.116 It was never ordered into print by Parliament (according to one source it was ordered to be sealed in a box).117 However, the royalist newsbook Mercurius Pragmaticus, edited by the newly loyal Marchamont Nedham, printed the intercepted letter; ­Nedham frames the letter to suggest that its author deserves compassion: As it was said of Moses, so may I say of his Majesty, that he is the meekest man upon earth. Was ther ever such a pattern of Patience, humility, sweetnes, & calmnes of spirit in the world, as is expressed in this Letter?118 Just as Elizabeth’s intercepted letter was printed by royalists to ­encourage compassion for the plight of a father and a daughter, Charles’s intercepted letter was printed to arouse sympathy for the king, where printing one’s own intercepted letter is intended as evidence of that ­party’s sincerity and integrity.

Civil War Newsbooks and Intercepted Letters Besides 1648s True Copy of Divers Intercepted Letters Sent from the Committee at Derby-House, there are no extant instances of ­royalists printing intercepted letters in pamphlet or broadside form during the

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  221 second civil war. Even before 1648, when intercepted letters were published by royalists they were printed just as often in the newsbook Aulicus as they were in pamphlets and broadsides. For instance, an intercepted letter from two members of the new Council of State to Fairfax appears in Aulicus, described as “another good prize,” and in another issue an intercepted letter of Thomas Ceely appears.119 Sometimes, the authenticity of the intercepted letters was questionable: after reporting the genuine intercepted letters of Argyll, Lanark, and Wariston, ­Berkenhead ends the issue with another intercepted letter, supposedly from ­Lieutenant General John Middleton to his wife Griselda (or Grizel) in which Aulicus makes fun of Middleton’s language and sentiments in sardonic parentheses. The letter begins: Deir Griss. Being uncertaine if this should come to your hands (it shall indeed Sir) i Most Neids use a strange straine in wrayting (you doe indeed Sir) which i know you will excuse, the reason whay i wrayt not oftner is because i desire not Aulicus should be My Secretarie (Good Sir doe not jeere us).120 In response, Mercurius Britanicus, after requoting the letter, wonders if the letter is indeed genuine but nevertheless defends Middleton as a gallant soldier whose “valour is better than his English.”121 Another questionable intercepted letter from one Peter Mills to his kinsman Richard Williams about parliamentary losses on the battlefield is also preceded by mocking commentary: to deal with their defeats, Aulicus writes, “the Rebells have excellent Epistles of encouragement, drawne all out of the Text [i.e., the Bible], which (because it concernes not their cause) they’l be sure to avouch.”122 Britanicus’ response, after requoting the letter, is “See what shifts the poor Pamphlet is put upon, to hold up the Credit of a single sheet: Though it be spring, I feare the Leaves will wither quite away.”123 Even though newsbooks from 1642 on frequently reported, summarized, and quoted intercepted, captured, and discovered letters, it was not until the following year that contending newsbooks such as ­Aulicus and Britanicus began trading accusations that letters printed by the other side were forged. At the same time that Aulicus attracted derisive comments on its epistolary fictionalizing—in The True Character of Mercurius Aulicus (1645 / T2601) Aulicus is described as “an excellent Secretarie; he can indite letters at Oxford and date them at Edinburgh” (6)—Aulicus in turn accused Parliament of forging letters for print, including intercepted ones. Pym is sometimes specifically singled out by Aulicus as a forger of letters, intercepted or otherwise: [C]ertain Letters were brought into the pretended House, written since John Pym’s dangerous Sicknesse, wherein his Plaister did him

222  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters great service, which puts me in mind of his Letter and the Tailor, the one having as much of the Mountebank as the other.124 Aulicus also mocks a report That the Cavaliers had a designe to destroy the Protestant Religion as appeares by a Letter to the Pope under their owne hands from Oxford, (shew me the Letter and I’le tell you which is Master Pyms hand, and which his mans).125 However, Berkenhead’s reference to “certain Letters … brought into the pretended House … contain[ing] a large Catalogue of the Popish ­Hierarchy that was to be introduced into his Kingdome” is to letters from an authentic collection of papers taken on Walter Montagu in early October 1643.126 On October 10, the material found on Montagu was described in session as “Letters, and other Papers, directed to the Bishop of Calcedon, dated 1º & 5º Octobris; setting forth the State and Condition of the Popish Hierarchy in England.”127 On November 10, intercepted letters of Inchiquin were also brought into the Commons and on the same day Robert Reynolds was ordered to print all of this material together, including an intercepted papal bull “for Canonizing such Catholicks as die in the War” taken in late September and read in session on October 5.128 The resulting pamphlet was The Popes Brief, or Romes Inquiry after the Death of Their Catholiques Here in England … Together with a Catalogue of … the Popish H ­ ierarchy in England … Also Severall Letters and Papers of the Lord Inchiquines Intercepted (1643, Dec. 7 / U128).129 Unlike Pym in Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter to M. William Crofts and Three Letters of Dangerous Consequence, Reynolds does not develop in Popes Brief a unified, coherent narrative from the disparate intercepted materials. Inchiquin’s letters concern military maneuvers while the bull and “Popish Hierarchy” concern Catholic church government; the pamphlet lacks the annotation or commentary that might have pulled the incongruent material together. Some newsbooks, however, offered commentary on these intercepted materials and the resulting official publication to point out significances and to assert the appropriate narratives. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer editorializes, There … came out in print, the list of the Popish Hierarchie … . [A]ll the world may see what progresse they had made, to set up Popery in this Kingdom, and how by the sword, they now endeavour to bring their designes to passe.130 The True Informer sets the inception of this particular plot to 1625: “it cannot but be apparent unto any man … with what industry the designe

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  223 for the introduction of popery into England hath been carried on, ever since the beginning of His Majesties raigne untill this very time.” The newsbook also offers a specific military event as evidence of how the almost 20-year-old scheme is presently being carried out: “an Army of Papist and Irish Rebels, now appearing in Armes in England to set ­forward that designe by force.”131 True Informer identifies the siege of Hawarden castle in Wales by Irish royalists during late November and early December as among the attacks that will conclude only with “the utter extirpation of the true Protestant Religion” (95).132 Newsbooks, then, could provide the ideological framework and apply the pertinent narratives absent from an official publication of intercepted letters. Occasionally, intercepted letters never ordered to be printed by Parliament appear in newsbooks. An intercepted letter from George Goring to the queen is an example of this phenomenon. His letter was read in the Commons and Lords on January 10, 1644, and was transcribed in full into the Lords Journal.133 However, the letter was never ordered by Parliament to be published even though because of the intercepted letter the Commons began impeachment proceedings against Goring (at the same time proceedings were underway in the Lords to impeach the queen). Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, an organ prepared to engage in antiroyalism, printed what amounts to a garbled summary of the letter.134 The letter, introduced as a synopsis, morphs as if into Goring’s actual letter, complete with print “signature,” although the letter includes language and attitudes not contained in Goring’s letter, such as the term “pretended Parliament”—a term Digby had used in a different intercepted letter (sent to Henry de Vic), which was taken around the same time. Along with Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer’s introduction of the letter, I quote roughly the first third of the letter as it appears in this newsbook where summary metamorphosizes into direct quote: a Letter directed: Pour la Royne de Angleterre; subscribed, Goring, dated a Paris, 5. 15. January, 1643. In which Letter were Expressions to this purpose: That her Majestie knew well, that the Prince de Harcourt was nominated by his Majestie at Oxford, to come over into England: That he was from time to time to receive Instructions from you, (meaning her Majestie, for the Letter was directed to her Majestie alone) to treat with the pretended Parliament, and to proceed no otherwise therein, then as he shall have Instructions from you: And therefore (Madam) make much of him, in his owne person: for it is here reported, that he is much neglected at Court: I wonder (Madam) your Majesties should stand so much upon that Article of an offensive and defensive war: That which most sticks with me (Madam) is, the payment of the souldiers after they are landed; for which purpose, I hope to take up 600000. French Crownes.135

224  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters The intercepted letter was reported in several newsbooks and Aulicus’ response was that it is “a pretended Letter … already printed before ‘twas written,” continuing, Now this Letter you may sweare (as most of those which they intercept) shall say any thing that the Faction would have published, particularly against the Queenes Majestie, whose blessed innocence is as much above their slander, as their malice.136 Berkenhead condemns Parliament’s skullduggery and holds the very ­authenticity of Goring’s letter in question. However, if by “pretended Letter” Berkenhead mean forged, the statement is not accurate, since the letter is a genuine letter by Goring however much it was misrepresented in some newsbooks.137 Still, Berkenhead holds the authenticity of the letter in question for the express purpose of articulating the “blessed innocence” of the queen and in doing so counters the narrative of the domineering queen evident, for instance, in the version of Goring’s letter in Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer. A Cunning Plot to Divide and Destroy the Parliament and the City of London … Fully Discovered in the … Letters from His Majesty, Letters from the Lord Digby, [and] Letters from Colonell Read (1644, Jan. 16 / C7586) is the official parliamentary publication detailing a series of letters exchanged among King Charles, Digby, John Reade, Basil Brooke, Thomas Violet, and Theophilus Riley intercepted on two separate occasions, one recognized in the Commons on January 6, 1644, and the other in the Lords on the same day; a conference between both houses was held to discuss them.138 Brooke and Reade, both Catholics, suggested an attempt to bring the city of London and the king in Oxford into an agreement of peace—one that would recognize the parliament the king was calling in Oxford on January 22 as the lawful one.139 Two letters from Digby to Brooke were intercepted along with one letter from Violet to Reade and two letters from Reade to Riley under the cover “The Man in the Moon.” Charles’s letter to the Lord Mayor and aldermen about this intended peace was also intercepted. The pamphlet consists of a narrative of the plot, a few of the letters inserted into the examinations of Riley, Violet, and Brooke, while the principal intercepted letters, with substantial commentary on each, conclude the pamphlet. The order for the publication was made on January 10.140 However, some of these letters found their way into newsbooks well before the official Cunning Plot was published. Two-thirds of one of the letters from Reade to Riley was printed in Mercurius Civicus, for instance.141 Perfect Diurnall comments on the fact that much has already been printed on this plot before quoting Digby’s letter to Brooke and one of Reade’s to Riley almost in their entirety; it offers as well a summary of a letter of Digby to Henry de Vic, Charles’s resident at Brussels, in which letter Digby uses the

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  225 term “pretended Parliament,” which was used against Digby (and ­Goring) in other publications.142 Britanicus, commenting on Riley’s cover, remarks sardonically, “Riley stiled by the Letters from O ­ xford; The man in the moone, a good prophesie on a paire of gallowes, for he may chance take his journey towards the moon shortly.”143 Kingdomes Weekly ­Intelligencer relates how “Read being come to Oxford he propounds the designe to his Majestie, who called to his advice the  Queene [and] the Lord Digby” in order to point out—literally—the queen’s supposed involvement with a manicule.144 This advance printing of some of the letters and related content no doubt accounts for the notice heading the official Cunning Plot: no printer but Peter Cole will “presume to Print any thing what was there delivered [to Guildhall], ­Letters, or Proclamations, or any other matter.”145 After Parliament’s official version of the plot appeared, it was well supported by Civicus, which reports again that “some discoveries of the late cunning plot against the Parliament and City of London, by endeavouring by a Machivilian policy to destroy both … are now by order of Parliament published in print”—referring expressly to the title of Parliament’s publication and reprinting some of its contents.146 Beginning in 1643, then, newsbooks began to assume a significant role in both printing and enlarging upon intercepted letters. Newsbooks frequently reported on and offered summaries and paraphrases of such letters; more and more often they duplicated letters previously printed in official publications and occasionally printed them in advance of the official publications. Some newsbooks, in addition, offered far more commentary on the intercepted letters they reported or summarized or printed than they ever received in pamphlet or broadside form—and often times more vituperation. One letter “intercepted, from Sir Jo. Byron to [William Cavendish,] the Earl of Newcastle, from Sambich, of December 26, 1643,” was ordered to be printed by the Commons on January 15, 1644, but either no pamphlet or broadside was ever produced or else no copy has survived.147 The entire intercepted letter, however, “a perfect copy … comming unto my hands,” appeared in Civicus, which justifies printing “a more full demonstration of the barbarous inhumanity of the said Sir John Biron.”148 In terms of length, the marginal annotations and accompanying commentary attacking Byron is roughly triple that of the 200-word letter itself. The interrelationship between intercepted, captured, and discovered letters and newsbooks is even more striking when considered in the context of the most familiar publication of such letters: King Charles’s letters captured during the Battle of Naseby and printed as The Kings Cabinet Opened. The Kings Cabinet Opened I am unable to give The Kings Cabinet Opened (1645, July 14T / C2358) the fullest attention it deserves since this chapter is dedicated to all sorts of intercepted, captured, and discovered letters printed throughout the

226  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters period; however, the cultural and political consequence of this pamphlet cannot be overstated as it was the most significant collection of captured correspondence published during the seventeenth century. I will limit my analysis to the cultural impact of the captured letters just before and just after the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened itself, specifically to the media, both oral and print, associated with the publication of the letters and to the contending cultural narratives energized through the pamphlet. Indeed, the supplementary commentary, both in support of Kings Cabinet Opened and in condemnation of it, was much more voluminous than the introduction that precedes and the annotations that conclude the letters in the pamphlet itself. In fact, the media attention given to the letters might have been as influential as the pamphlet itself in determining public perceptions, since the media just prior and just subsequent to the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened repeatedly sustained and contested the various cultural narratives construed in the letters. Parliament noticed the letters on June 23.149 Several newsbooks immediately reported on the fact of the capture of the letters and offered summaries of some of the letters’ contents, even brief quotes.150 Scotish Dove characterizes the contents of the cabinet as “so many precious Letters (tell-truthes) that clearely shew the falsitie and fained dissimulation of all their combination.”151 Perfect Occurrences feels “it will not be amisse to give you some hints of some of these Letters” before they are published in full.152 Early on, key terms from the letters were picked up and quoted in newsbooks, leveling condemnation in the process. Of these early reports, Britanicus was the most expansive, devoting virtually the entirety of issue 88 to several paraphrases of several snatches of several letters—including letters that would not be printed in the future Kings Cabinet Opened—while some newsbooks reported on a public reading of the letters planned to acquaint the populace with the correspondence.153 Perfect Diurnall briefly summarizes the damning portions of some of the letters, including King Charles’s reference to his “mungrell Parliament at Oxford,” but also concludes disingenuously, “There are many other particulers which wee will wave for the present least they may prove prejudiciall,” while The Moderate Intelligencer offers a broad digest and concludes We hope there will be no offence taken at these particulars; we therefore put them in, because the discovery of these to the World may further the end of Englands troubles, as much as the Sword, as all wise men may easily gather.154 On June 30, indeed, the Commons ordered that “no Person do presume to print any Part of the Letters … without special Order.”155 As with other such letters, such as Digby’s taken in February 1642, Parliament, realizing the potential of the cabinet, sought to keep tight

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  227 control over publication. Some newsbooks refer to the parliamentary order regarding unauthorized printing and mention the future publication of the letters.156 Other newsbooks explain that Parliament’s order was due to “some penns having beene the last weeke too bold in hinting uncertainely at the particulars of some of these letters.”157 Some of the king’s statements were indeed garbled in early newsbook summaries. In one of the letters, Charles writes to his wife of his various thoughts as “too wise, others too foolish, some too busie, others too reserved, many fantastick” (Kings Cabinet Opened, Letter 9, p. 8); in Mercurius Veridicus’ distorted reference these become characteristics ascribed specifically to members of Charles’s “Mungrell Parliament”: “Some of them [of the Oxford Parliament] (he writes) are so over-witty, some stark fooles, and others so phantasticall, that he cannot make them do things to his content.”158 Even though the “quote” in Veridicus is not far from the original, the point of reference is fixed inaccurately on Charles’s Oxford Parliament. Civicus therefore does not print summaries or brief quotes after Parliament’s order but editorializes nonetheless: we shall now refer them [any Malignants] to His Majesties own ­ rotestations and that to his bosome consort, and desire their p ­credence to them … as they are expressed under his owne hand, though Diametri[c]ally opposite to what he formerly published.159 More acidly, Britanicus, addressing the king’s parliament at Oxford, writes, “Do not strive to make the world beleeve that which is not: King Charles Himself tells His Deare Consort, that you are but a Mongrel Crew, and that he meanes to turne you out of service,” using the king’s own words about his recalcitrant Oxford Parliament as well as referring to Charles’s epistolary salutations to his wife.160 Several of these newsbooks also observe how the letters support various cultural narratives. Britanicus refers to the queen as “our Soveraigne Shee-Saint [who] sends a Scolding Epistle out of France (She knowes how to do it) to the King Her Husband; wherein (like a true Controlour of the Breeches) She signifies her displeasure” (801). Perfect Occurrences of Parliament chimes in likewise: “all things [are] ordered by Woman, which make the Court Ladies bespeake breeches, because they will be in the Fashion.”161 Veridicus concludes “That never was King thus in thralled by evill Councell.”162 The printing of the captured letters as Kings Cabinet Opened was also preceded by an official public viewing and reading of some of the letters at Guildhall on July 3 followed by speeches—an oral publication deemed distinct from print publication. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer reports that at the public reading a “great confluence of some thousands Citizens of all sorts being present, who at the reading of the Letters, by their shouts and exhibilations declared their dislike and disapprobation

228  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters of the King and Queens expressions in them.”163 The resulting publication was Three Speeches Spoken at a Common-Hall … by Mr. Lisle, Mr. Tate, [&] Mr. Brown … Containing Many Observations upon the Kings ­L etters (1645, July 14T / T1121), which appeared the same day that Kings Cabinet Opened came out. MPs John Lisle and Thomas Browne inserted direct quotes from the captured letters into their speeches to make specific criticisms of Charles’s policies, while MP Zouch Tate, in his briefer, broader, and more inflammatory speech warns that as a result of Charles freeing Irish Catholics from penal laws “the Irish may come over into England to cut your throats, as they cut the throats of all the Irish Protestants in Ireland” (8). To reiterate, then, this continuing reference to the letters—readings, factual accounts, sometimes garbled quotations and summaries, editorials, speculations, and applications of diverse cultural narratives—was in the public forum well before Kings Cabinet Opened was published. Kings Cabinet Opened appeared on July 14.164 Of the 38 documents printed in Kings Cabinet Opened, 31 are letters: 20 from the king to the queen; six from the queen to the king; four from the king to James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond; and one from the king to James Stuart, 1st Duke of Richmond.165 Thomas May, John Sadler, and Henry Parker, who composed the introduction and annotations to the documents, anticipate objections to the material: that the letters were forged or doctored, and that the interpretations are unjust and partial.166 Indeed, there is “perspicuity and modesty” ([A4]) in the concluding annotations, as stated in the introduction: printing and annotating them was not an uncivil, barbarous act, in other words.167 One of the principal purposes of printing the letters of the king and queen in Kings Cabinet Opened was to show how “a Prince [is] seduced out of his proper sphear” (A3), particularly by the queen, whose letters figure prominently in the collection. The initial annotation therefore indicates, “It is plaine, here, first, that the Kings Counsels are wholly managed by the Queen” and in the next observation that “The Queens Counsels are as powerfull as commands” (43). Subsequent royalist objections to printing specifically private letters between the king and the queen are numerous, but this is precisely Parliament’s point: the letters constitute documentary evidence of the interactions among political figures, the king and queen, even though situated within the domestic sphere of husband and wife.168 They are simply “evidences of truth” (A3), as the preface indicates. Newsbook accounts of the captured letters continued after Kings Cabinet Opened was published, but there were generally fewer reports. Parliaments Post offered partial quotes of a few letters, but other newsbooks tended to report or editorialize generally about the contents of the publication.169 The exception to this was Britanicus, which offered not only the most scrutiny but also the most venom. Almost the entirety of issue 90 is devoted to analysis of Kings Cabinet Opened, “to

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  229 open the eyes of the wilfully obstinate, and such as are seduced, and for the Confirmation of well-affected persons,” as Nedham offers for his motivation.170 Beginning with the first letter in Kings Cabinet Opened, Nedham intersperses his bracketed commentary within the text quoted from the letters; in this format Nedham scrutinizes the first 11 letters, some letters receiving more commentary than others, Nedham concluding with his promise to carry on the analysis, which he continued ­intermittently throughout the next several issues. To counter various damning cultural narratives, royalists developed the story of the romance of Charles and Henrietta Maria in order to ­focus on the mutual love shared by the king and queen as exhibited by the letters in Kings Cabinet Opened—that “the king’s letters should be read as part of the discourse of love rather than that of politics.”171 These letters are love letters, in other words. As one apologist for the king puts it, taking the role of one parliamentary partisan speaking to another, ‘Tis true, if this booke had never seene the light, you and I should have made no doubt at all of the King’s Conjugall affection, yet I must confesse ‘tis here set downe with so much virtue and elegance … that for the time to come I shall love my owne wife the better.172 Laura Lunger Knoppers suggests that some of the letters not printed among those captured include those where intimate content was foremost, as Parliament was anxious to suppress material that might arouse sympathy for Charles; she demonstrates how the selection, organization, translation, and typography of the letters included tended to emphasize Charles’s uxoriousness.173 There can be little doubt that Item 34 (34), a document by Charles from 1626 about his discontent with the queen, was included precisely in order to emphasize Charles’s difficulty with his wife and so to counter the narrative of the royal romance. Nedham is therefore also forced to challenge the narrative of the royal romance and does so in issue 91 of Britanicus: “Others there are, and those especially of the tatling Sexe, which extoll him for his love to his Wife,” and in the first half of issue 91 Nedham analyzes—out of order—this 1626 document to accentuate Charles’s troubles with Henrietta Maria: “This is a new strain of a feminine spirit,” observes Nedham of the queen’s behavior, as evidenced in the document.174 Nedham then continues to examine the letters in order with Letters 12 and 13. In issue 92 of Britanicus, Letters 14, 16, 18, 17, and 19 are examined, Nedham’s principal purpose to support the narrative of Irish Catholics plotting to destroy England. In the meantime, in the lone July issue of Aulicus, Berkenhead laments, they glory in breaking open the Kings owne Cabinet, and have printed to the world such private Letters as they found had past betwixt His ­Majesty and His Royall Consort, wherein the Rebels have

230  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters onely discovered the vanity and fruitlessenesse of their owne weake malice, have plainely interwoven and superstructed such forgeries as are not onely horrible and impudent, but full of apparent ridiculous contradiction.175 Britanicus’ debate with Aulicus commences in number 93, which does not allow Nedham to analyze any of the letters in Kings Cabinet Opened, but picks up Letters 15, 22, 35, 37, and Items 24, 25 in issue 94. In its next number, Aulicus, by way of announcing that A Letter in Which the Arguments of the Annotator and Three Other Speeches upon Their Majestie’s Letters … Are Examined (Oxford, 1645, Aug. 12T / L1557) has just been printed, observes, If (as they use His Majestie) we should print to the world all the intercepted private Letters of the Rebels, (which common modesty forbids us) we could publish such guilty papers, full of mutuall cosenage, filthy vanities, holy Lies, uncleane blasphemies, all the dregs of folly and vice in their familiar Epistles; to which Britanicus replies, “I suppose the Reader is well acquainted with the modesty (forsooth) of this Pamphleter; For be assured, that if any Letters were, or could be produced, yea, or forged, They would spare neither cost, art, nor invention, to make them publique.”176 While royalists indeed printed far fewer intercepted letters than Parliament (and printed in pamphlet form treated them somewhat differently), Aulicus, as we have seen, printed intercepted letters, both authentic and fictional. Aulicus’ emphasis here, however, is on the impropriety of printing private letters (as opposed to letters of military or political intelligence), which, in the estimation of Aulicus, breaks one of the most essential codes of civility—again, despite the fact that Aulicus also printed private letters between spouses, such as one from Lieutenant General John Middleton to his wife, which I examined above. Britanicus continues in number 96 with commentary on the queen’s ­letters to the king, assessing Letters 27, 33, 29, 31, and 30 of the “Generalissima of all the Traitours in England,” some of which observations are ad feminam.177 By isolating five of the six letters of the queen to the king in a single issue of Britanicus, Nedham brings the narrative of the domineering queen into sharp focus. Nedham promises other parts of the cabinet as occasion warrants and ends the issue with a self-justification for printing and commenting on the letters in Kings Cabinet Opened so extensively: he which considers the plain discovery of these odious Mysteries to every mean capacity, and reducing it weekly into single sheets, for those which would not have bought (and some not understood) all together; will conceive my doings herein justifiable by reason. ([864])

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  231 Nedham implies that he has, in fact, “improved” the letters as presented in Kings Cabinet Opened by extensive observation and by democratizing the content at a cheaper cost to the community—in short, Nedham has undertaken a benevolent public service. In total, of the 38 documents in Kings Cabinet Opened, Nedham quoted and analyzed 30 of them over the course of six issues.178 Mercurius Anti-Britanicus had in the meantime printed two issues in which it expressly criticized the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened and specifically responded to the ongoing annotating by Britanicus. Anti-Britanicus offers a curious “bibliographical” criticism of Kings Cabinet Opened including mockery of “a Frontispiece as serious as my Lord Say” while its title “runns not in the old, dull, downeright, Assembly stile, of, Nineteen Propositions, or, A Remonstrance” and the capital letters are large enough to “call and becken Readers to it” at a distance.179 Anti-Britanicus charges that this is, in fact, a sort of second edition since the “first edition” consisted of the oral publication at Guildhall—condemned by Anti-Britanicus as effectively a marketing strategy to drum up interest in the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened; Anti-Britanicus through its criticism therefore reenergizes the narrative of parliamentary greed. The newsbook also criticizes the annotations in Britanicus (that is, not the annotations that conclude Kings Cabinet Opened itself). Anti-Britanicus claims that Britanicus in reconfiguring the pamphlet in newsbook form “contrived a Metamorphosis, much stranger then any in Ovid; and [has] turned the Kings own Letters into a Mercurius Britannicus; by Printing them at large, and in a kind of Second Edition” (in fact, a “third edition” if remaining consistent with the logic of the oral publication as the first).180 Anti-­Britanicus challenges various antiroyalist narratives and supports royalist counternarratives, but its “bibliographical” criticism is an intriguing approach to countering the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened and the support it received in Britanicus. The suggestion of successive editions implies successive bastardizations of original material—in other words, Anti-Britanicus does not deny the authenticity of the letters but charges unjust textual manipulation of them, both for economic gain and for unscrupulous propagandizing. Britanicus complains in number 97 that he cannot get his hands on but one of the issues of Anti-Britanicus (it appears to be E.297[17]), but dismisses the newsbook nonetheless as “this Malignant Frippery, this Bum-fodder” and prints the king’s instructions to Colonel William Cochrane to solicit the king of Denmark—acknowledged as not taken in the cabinet at Naseby but published in Kings Cabinet Opened nevertheless (Item 39, p. 39).181 Nedham laments two numbers later, “I wish the King would write some more Letters, I feare I shall have nothing to do else.”182 A month later, Nedham’s wish was more or less granted: in Britanicus number 102 Nedham exults over the capture of Digby’s cabinet near Sherburn: “More Cabinets yet! Now then I see I shall have some

232  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters work,” he writes. “I tell thee (Reader) George Digbies Cabinet is come to Town, and tels as strange Tales as ever the King’s did.”183 Pamphlet responses condemning the publication of Kings Cabinet Opened are generally of the same tenor as those in Aulicus and Anti-­ Britanicus—that is, they defend against the same narratives and level the same counternarratives, placing simplicity above complexity, rationality and common sense above exegesis and sophistry, civility and charitability above barbarity and malice. In Some Observations upon Occasion of the Publishing Their Majesties Letters (Oxford, 1645, Aug. 8T / S4538), for instance, the anonymous author asks, “Inquire into thy owne nature, as well as these Letters, and see if thou had’st had either a Christian or a Morall Spirit, whether these short Observations following were not more naturall out of those Letters, then those publisht” (2). In other words, the author suggests a charitable approach to the letters and commences to reinterpret those parts of letters glossed in the annotations that conclude Kings Cabinet Opened. Accusations of Parliament’s lack of Christian spirit become charges of sacrilege, as in Edward ­Symmons’s massive, though ultimately belated, defense, A Vindication of King Charles … from Those Aspersions Cast upon Him by … The Kings Cabinet Opened (1647, Nov. 8T / S6350), part of which is “to justifie the Church of England … of any such unreverend, blasphemous, and reproachfull language, against Soveraigne Majesty, as that malicious Pamphlet is stuffed withall” (Preface, C2v).184 Parliament consists of men “whose Religion will allow them to ransack God’s Cabinet [i.e., divine law], no marvaile, if they quickly find reason not to spare the King’s” (3), asserts Thomas Browne in A Key to the Kings Cabinet (Oxford, 1645, Aug. 21T / B5181A). Toward the conclusion of the pamphlet Browne writes, “And thus, have you seen the bottome of that Heart, which the Scripture calls unsearchable. The Cabinet hath imparted to you, so perfect an Image of the Kings very Thoughts; that the Rack could not afford a clearer” (51). Browne revises the arcana imperii topos (such as it was verbalized in His Majesties Declaration to All His Loving Subjects) to restructure the transgression of searching the king’s heart into the torture of a monarch that, despite the intense persecution, yields nothing but the truth that was there all along. The principal purpose of the material reinforcing Kings Cabinet Opened, and of the condemnation denouncing it, was to contextualize contending political viewpoints in terms of competing cultural narratives. Royalist narratives foregrounding the king’s honor and moral uprightness were undoubtedly contestable. The fundamental argument of Anti-Britanicus, for instance, that Parliament employed dishonorable tactics in printing the king’s private letters to his wife, was a narrative exceedingly difficult to sustain since Charles’s letters demonstrated patent evidence of his duplicity.185 At the same time, the narrative of evil counselors ruling the king was intensified in the annotations to Kings Cabinet

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  233 Opened: “The King doth yet in many things surpasse the Queene for acts of hostility, and covering them over with deeper and darker secrecy” (44; my italics). As Joad Raymond bluntly puts it, “The evasion of blaming evil counsel is now redundant. The king is a malignant.”186 Still, the narrative of an uxorious king controlled by a foreign, Catholic queen was vigorously energized by Kings Cabinet Opened and the publications supporting it. Contemporary Lucy Hutchinson’s opinion was that the letters demonstrated how the king had “given himselfe up to be govern’d by the queene in all affaires both of state and religion.”187 The printing of Kings Cabinet Opened, as Diane Purkiss claims, “allowed republicans … to construct an alternative model of legitimation, one which opposed a private sphere of monarchy, feminised and therefore treacherous and unavailable to scrutiny, to the masculine public sphere in which the letters themselves could be read by the citizens of the Commonwealth” through which specific cultural narratives could be exploited.188 Jasper Mayne, commenting in 1647 on the susceptibility of the letters to contending interpretations (and, hence, to competing narratives), writes, I have in my time seen certain Pictures with two faces. Beheld one way, they have presented the shape and figure of a Man. Beheld­ another, they have presented the shape and figure of a Serpent. Me thinks … whatever Letters the King wrote either to the Queene, or his friends … had the ill fortune to undergoe the fate of such a Picture.189 Kings Cabinet Opened nevertheless remained the central point of ­reference in framing subsequent publications of intercepted and captured letters in order to validate a variety of antiroyalist narratives. By way of coda, The Kings Packet of Letters Taken by Colonell ­Rossiter … Wherein Is Discovered the Whole Business of the Kings Designes (1645, Oct. 13 / C2359) serves as an example of an unauthorized pamphlet masquerading as an official publication that was likely an attempt to capitalize on the success of Kings Cabinet Opened, published the summer before, since the pamphlet mimics the title of the earlier publication. It is a disparate collection of intercepted letters whose editor misrepresents some of the documents—even purposefully alters dates— to make the letters appear to bear on contemporary military events. It is framed as published according to order, but there is no express order in either the Commons or Lords Journals, although the first two letters in the collection were read in session.190 The letters consist of Robert Hatton’s prefatory letter to Gervais Lucas, Governor of Belvoir; King Charles’s letter to Lucas; John Byron’s letter to the king and Digby; and Daniel O’Neill’s letter to Digby. Hatton’s letter and the king’s letter to Lucas were recently written and intercepted, but Byron’s letter to the king and Digby, dated vaguely “C. A. [circa] 1645” (6) in the pamphlet,

234  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters is in fact from April 26, 1645.191 The letter from O’Neill to Digby is dated October 9, 1645, in the pamphlet; however, it was originally written in May or June of 1644 and was intercepted by William Brereton during the summer of 1644.192 Brereton explains to Henry Vane Jr. and Oliver St. John, to whom he belatedly sent the intercepted O’Neill letter (on March 31, 1645), that “it is supposed it was writ last year, but the enemy prosecutes the same design.”193 Brereton’s strategic rationale for sending the letter well after it was taken was to acquire appropriate military assistance from Parliament. However, the purpose of including the letter and postdating it to October 9, 1645, in the pamphlet was not only to construct the letter as contemporaneous but also to reinforce the familiar narrative of ongoing royalist plotting, as this story is woven into the sometimes specific but sometimes general observations that follow the letters in the pamphlet. Some newsbooks supported Kings Packet of Letters and one reiterated its manufactured contemporaneity. ­Hatton’s and the king’s letters alone were reprinted in Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, which comments broadly, “What intentions His Majesty hath at present for Peace, you many perceive by the Letters lately intercepted.”194 Britanicus quotes the king’s letter and, because O’Neill’s 1644 letter is mispresented as contemporary, Nedham can conclude, Unlesse these two Counties be cleared, or brought more feasible, Daniel O Neale tels Digby in a Letter, there is little probability to make the Kingdome of Ireland servicable to this; that is, to bring the Irish Rebels hither to cut our throats.195

Digby’s Captured Letters Nedham’s exultation in Britanicus at the capture of Digby’s letters at Sherburn not only associates Kings Cabinet Opened with the resultant pamphlet, The Lord George Digby’s Cabinet and Dr. Goff’s Negotiations Together with His Majesties, the Queens, and the Lord Jermin’s, and Other Letters Taken at the Battel at Sherborn (1646, Mar. 26 / B4763A); but the introductory editorial observations to the official pamphlet also make quite clear this particular point of reference.196 The first sentence of the flyleaf reads, “The Reader, comparing Cabinet with Cabinet, the Kings with the Lord Digby’s, will easily observe how the unnatural Enemies to this their Native Country … have gone about seeking how they may devour it” (2), while Thomas May and John Sadler (who with Henry Parker composed the introduction to Kings Cabinet Opened) make clear in their introduction to Digby’s Cabinet that with the publishing the Kings Cabinet Letters then taken (the more to manifest Gods mercy) were the endeavoured returns of a thankful heart on the Parliaments part. God hath again used the same

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  235 method in his mercies at the Battel near Sherborn in Yorkshire, ­defeating the Forces, and delivering up to the Parliament the Cabinet and ­Councels of the Lord Digby. (5) The letters were first noticed in the Commons on October 20, 1645, and ordered to committee on October 25 with “Copies of … Five Letters” expressly set aside to be sent to the Lords.197 Eighty-three documents were eventually sent to the Lords on October 27, and on October 30 the Lords isolated “Six … Letters [as] the principal Ones,” writing them into the record.198 These six are listed as three letters of the king to Ormond; a commission Charles sent to Ormond; a letter of the king to Prince Rupert; and a letter with no identifiable sender or recipient regarding royalist military losses. Yet more letters from this capture were brought in on November 1; these include “Seven Letters or Papers of the Lord Digbye’s” and these additional documents were sent to the Lords on November 17.199 Of the materials captured, the joint committee to examine and p ­ repare them for print eventually published 31 documents in Digby’s Cabinet and, intriguingly, none of the six “principal Ones” was included. 200 ­Because five of those six documents expressly demonstrated the king’s involvement with the administration of Ireland and treating with the Irish, these were likely excluded to avoid implicating the king directly in seeking foreign aid (in fact, the same selection of material finally included in Kings Cabinet Opened could also have been managed in this way to defend Charles’s reputation). 201 Even though Kings Cabinet Opened is invoked as a parallel providential discovery, only one letter from the king is contained in Digby’s Cabinet (written to the queen concerning his reservations about French aid), and Charles’s agency is mentioned specifically only once in the prefatory commentary. Hence, Digby’s Cabinet was not principally constructed to condemn Charles as malignant; rather by excluding those five letters and by clustering others together in four distinct groups, Digby’s Cabinet offers again to support the narrative of evil counselors, in this case, those betraying their country by seeking foreign aid. Of the four groupings of letters in Digby’s Cabinet, the first and largest (15 letters beginning with the second letter) is subtitled “Letters concerning Dr. Goffs Negotiation with the Lord George Digby, Lord Jermin and others,” pertaining to Stephen Goffe, royalist agent in the Netherlands, whose letters detail his negotiations with Holland. 202 The following two groupings collect together “Letters concerning Ireland from the Lord Digby, Marquesse of Ormond, Lord Jermin and others, And Fitz-Williams Treaty with the Queene about the Irish” (seven letters) and “Severall Letters between the Lord Jermine and the Lord Digby, concerning Provisions of Men and Armes, to send ­Forain Forces into England, and to the Earl of Montrosse in SCOTLAND” (four

236  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters letters). Isolating the letters exchanged among Goffe, Jermyn, and Digby permits focus specifically on discussions to bring in foreign military aid, as Goffe, Digby, and Jermyn were entrusted to negotiate in Holland, Ireland, and France, respectively. “Severall Letters from his Majesty and the Lord Digby, to her Majestie,” the last grouping, follows with four letters, but this cluster demonstrates no consistent or unified topic. No doubt the compilers of the collection take a dig at Digby by including his letter to the queen regarding the capture of the king’s letters at Naseby, which contains—and not without irony—Digby’s self-congratulation: I beleeve by this time your Majesty heares much noise from London of the Papers taken in the Kings Cabinet, it was unfortunately and heedlesly lost, to leave so precious things in a Wagon; I thank God I lost none of mine. 203 (61) The compilers bookend the collection with one letter each of the king and queen—as if everything in between is comprehended by them: the first letter is from Henrietta Maria to Digby about internal squabbling among the king and queen’s chief counselors, and the last letter is from Charles to the queen expressing his doubts about forthcoming French aid. The lag in printing the captured letters (almost five months) is described in the introductory observations as “a throng of intervening occasions with some unhappy neglects” (6). Samuel Rawson Gardiner claims that it would demonstrate impropriety to print letters in which the transactions of foreign states would be exposed—in particular that to do with the Scots—but this is at best a partial explanation of the months-long delay; Jason Peacey, rather, offers a detailed analysis of the factional politics at play in the belated determination of the letters to be published. 204 While it is accurate that the sensitivity of Charles’s clandestine negotiations with the Scots needed careful presentation (one of the orders to print stipulates “That such of these Letters as concern the Kingdom of Scotland, be not printed”), it also seems that whatever narrative(s) Parliament wished to proffer took time to sort out. 205 There are no fewer than four orders and one resolution to print the documents taken at Sherburn: on December 10, 1645; January 16; February 2; with a resolution on January 19; and a final, redundant order on February 13, 1646—which Peacey attributes in part to factional jostling. 206 I think that the very real need to organize the mass of material and to decipher those letters that were encoded account in part for the delay, while factional maneuvering no doubt had a critical impact on the letters ultimately printed; such maneuvering among parliamentary factions in turn determined the narratives that were finally promoted—marked, for instance, by first isolating and then disregarding several of the king’s letters.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  237 Several newsbooks reported on these letters during late October and early November 1645 once they were read in Parliament. Among other newsbooks, City-Scout and Britanicus offer brief reports, editorializing nonetheless, while Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer summarizes four of the six principal letters and concludes, much like May and Sadler will in their introduction to Digby’s Cabinet, that Charles is still being led by evil counselors. 207 Perhaps the newsbook most aggressively focusing on the threat of foreign military aid in advance of the publication of Digby’s Cabinet is Mercurius Civicus, which warns of assistance gathered from Denmark, Rome, Ireland, and, sarcastically, that “his Majesty [also] hath some Agents with the Turke; sure if the devill were capable of the communication of the Royalists … they would not want an agent with him too.”208 One of the letters, from the king to Rupert, was printed in a few newsbooks roughly a month later, for instance in Mercurius Veridicus and Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages, the latter printing followed by critical commentary. 209 But Britanicus gives this single letter exhaustive treatment, printing the letter in sections with bracketed commentary sandwiched between them. 210 May and Sadler reiterate the same pious language of providential discovery in introducing Digby’s Cabinet. 211 Interreferentiality is indeed a hallmark of the observations in sustaining the narrative of comprehensive foreign invasion: If it should be now ask’d, What’s become of Our Kingdom, Our Name, Our Posterity? Let … these following Letters, with those taken at Nazeby make Answer; for strong Endeavours were and are yet on foot, not onely for raising Forraign Force for England, but whole Forraign States and Kingdoms are prest upon to Declare, and to make an Offensive and Defensive War against the Parliament. (8) With Kings Cabinet Opened as a foundation, compilers and editors of later collections of intercepted and captured letters such as Digby’s Cabinet develop the shared narratives—here, the threat of evil counselors and foreign invaders—in a fashion, constructing validation of earlier suspicions. In mid-October 1645 when they were first seized, these letters possessed military or strategic value since many of them dated from September and October 1645; by the time the letters were published en masse in March 1646, their military or strategic value had disappeared but they still possessed propagandistic value as proof that the treachery adumbrated in Kings Cabinet Opened still proliferated in the king and his council. Newsbooks did not much concern themselves with the old news of the letters once Digby’s Cabinet came out; Nedham however devoted seven issues of Britanicus (Numbers 124–130) to the captured letters,

238  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters printing in whole or in part 21 of the letters in Digby’s Cabinet, giving far more annotation to the letters than they ever received in Digby’s Cabinet where no individual letter is glossed or given explicit commentary. Except for a few lapses, Nedham goes through these letters in the order they were presented in the pamphlet, not rearranging them for the sake of isolating specific narratives identified in the letters as he did in annotating the material in Kings Cabinet Opened. Sometimes only precise parts of letters are quoted so that Nedham can make specific points. The primary topic of Nedham’s observations is the raising of foreign powers in order to stoke anti-Catholic anxiety—although there are satirical jabs at Jermyn and Digby here and there. Nedham also finds room to bash the queen, for instance, by inserting a sardonic clause in parentheses after the salutation of the letter from the king to the queen: “Deare Heart, (which had like to have lost him three Kingdoms).”212 Specific references to material in Kings Cabinet Opened also appear, as where Nedham refers to a petition of Colonel John Fitzwilliam from the queen to the king (Item 21, p. 21). 213 Indeed, cross-referencing the letters in Digby’s Cabinet with those in Kings Cabinet Opened is a significant part of Nedham’s strategy to prove continuing “designes and jugling Treaties with Foraigners.”214 Referencing the introduction to the earlier pamphlet, Nedham cements the relationship between the two as discoveries of perfidious practices: We had the happinesse heretofore to have the rifling of the Kings Cabinet … wherein we ransackt the greatest Treasure of the Enemy, their most secret Counsels, hidden Mysteries of State, and made a full discovery of all pernicious practises then on foot … to advance that cursed Conspiracie against our Religion and Liberties. 215 In another instance, Nedham quotes a letter in Digby’s Cabinet that is similar to one in Kings Cabinet Opened, in which the queen appears to be in charge of bestowing offices: Such an excuse as here is for admitting Sir John Grenvile of the Prince his Bed-chamber, you may read (almost in the same words) in a Letter from the King to the Queen, among those taken at Naseby, whereby you may perceive what an influence she hath upon the King in all (even his meanest) actions. 216 Nedham promises in issue 130 that “after one week more I shall have done with” (1112) Digby’s letters, but Britanicus folded after this issue. The following year, yet more Digby letters dating from late August 1647 were captured, officially printed as Two Letters of the Lord Digby to the Lord Taaff (1647, Dec. 4 / B4780). 217 Brought to Parliament on November 30 and ordered into print on December 1, the two letters from Digby to Theobald Taaffe, a member of the Irish confederacy, are

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  239 presented with the ciphered portions still enciphered but with interlinear decryption; no additional observation, commentary, or gloss is added. 218 The letters were also printed in newsbooks. 219 Like ­Aulicus’ past accusations that certain intercepted and captured letters were ­forgeries, two of the new royalist periodicals objected to the letters. Mercurius Elencticus refers to “two forged Letters which were pretended to be written from the Lord Digby, to the Lord Viscount Taaff, and found in his Cabinet (for they have great luck to Cabinets)”; the newsbook’s evidence consists of the fact that a newsbook allied to Parliament, which is not named, had at the time Digby’s letters were written reported that he was in France dueling Henry Wilmot. 220 This claim is, in fact, incorrect since Digby arrived in Ireland from France on July 4, while his duel with Wilmot did not occur until October. 221 The other royalist newsbook to cry fake, Mercurius Pragmaticus, asserts of one letter, “the very looks of it proclaimes Forgery.”222 This periodical nevertheless printed the letter again but removed the ciphers as they appeared in the letter in Two Letters of the Lord Digby to the Lord Taaff, giving only the deciphered text. Pragmaticus can therefore state let any reasonable creature judge whether so … carefull a Servant as my Lord Digby, would have communicated the secrets of his ­Master’s Affaires (as these are pretended to be) in so slight a Character, legible to all the world. ([M4]) Unlike other circumstances where royalists printed their own intercepted letters to enforce pity or sympathy, here reprinting one’s own captured letter was meant to proclaim its absurdity. Even though roughly a quarter of the original letter was in cipher, Pragmaticus describes the letter as “legible to all the world” and can consequently suggest that the letter simply does not document fact due to what the newsbook constructs as an impossible lapse of its author’s judgment.

Intercepted and Captured Letters of the Scots King Notable among the diminishing number of intercepted letters printed during the second and third civil wars is Three Intercepted Letters, the One from Charles Stuart, Son to the Late King; the Other Two from the Lord Digby and Daniel Monro to the Earle of Ormond (1649, Oct. 8T / C3610) as it contains the first intercepted letter of the new Scots king ordered by Parliament into print (on October 2). 223 The intercepted letters themselves are dated May and July, “though of older date, are yet not out of season” (7), as the concluding observations indicate. The brief missive from Charles to Ormond is intended to demonstrate that the treachery of the father has passed onto—or has indeed worsened in—the son: Charles I’s “extreme necessitie” (8) drove him to seek aid

240  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters from the Irish confederates, but his son “blushes not to call it a great good worke,” relying “chiefly upon the Irish; preferring Papists, and ­capitulating rebells before an offer’d Kingdome of Presbyterians … nothing but extremity, and lowest exigence can persuade [the Scots king] to joyn with Presbytery, and the Covnant” (8). This pamphlet develops a contemporaneous narrative, a “like-father-like-son” characterization of Charles, in order to register the persistent treachery of the Stuarts. Henrietta Maria is also brought back into focus, in part to blame for her son’s adherence to Catholics. The pamphlet highlights the discord between Charles and the Kirk to point out Charles’s loyalty to Catholics rather than to Protestants. Several newsbooks picked up the letters, either summarizing them, as in Severall Proceedings in Parliament, or else printing them in full, as in The Kingdomes Faithfull and Impartiall Scout and The Perfect Weekly Account.224 During the third civil war, four letters of Charles to Montrose were captured, but were not ordered by Parliament or the Council of State to be printed and do not appear in pamphlet form; they were, however, published in newsbooks. 225 Evidently, in late May 1650 after a frigate had landed (or was taken or foundered, according to the source) in the north of Scotland with military aid for the recently executed Montrose, several letters were discovered, four of which were from Charles to M ­ ontrose written between September 1649 and March 1650. A Briefe Relation, an officially authorized newsbook edited by Walter Frost, printed them prefaced with observations from an additional letter from a contact in Berwick, sent along with the four letters: If they [the Scots] can make use of it, they have a fair discovery; they may see what a Jewel it is they strive to hang about their Necks, he [Charles] walks as close in his Fathers steps, as if he were like to come to the same end, as the letters reveal a duplicitous Scots king playing the Kirk and Montrose against one another, like Charles I played faction against faction. 226 In the letters themselves, Charles indeed assures Montrose “not to be startled with any Reports you may hear, as if I were otherwise inclined to the Presbyterians, then I was before when I left you,” and encourages him to “proceed in your business with your wonted courage and alacrity.”227 Despite the fact that no official pamphlet resulted, political hay was made out of these letters in the newly sanctioned Mercurius Politicus, edited by Nedham. 228 After quoting all four letters, Nedham explains that deception is a hereditary Stuart trait: By these, you may guess, this is Dads own son, two faces under one hood being an Hereditary posture; and he keeps close to it, one

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  241 while tickling Montross, another while the Kirk, that he might have two strings to his Bow, and make use of either, as he saw occasion, and goes on to rail against the “Hypocrisie of the Presbyterians” for ­ ccepting Charles after he had instigated Montrose against them. 229 a The captured letters that found their way into The Answer of the ­Parliament of England to a Paper Entituled, A Declaration by the Kings Majesty to His Subjects of the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and ­Ireland … Whereunto Is Annexed Copies of Four Letters to the King of Scotland Which Were Found in the Lord Loudouns Cabinet (1650 / E1227) were a belated addition to Parliament’s response to Charles’s declaration of the title. The answer to the Declaration was prepared and ordered to be printed on September 18, but after John Rushworth informed Parliament on September 20 that letters were taken in the cabinet of Loudoun (chancellor of Scotland and to the Scots king) after the Scots’ defeat at Dunbar, Thomas Scott was charged with seeing the letters printed at the end of Answer of the Parliament. 230 The letters were no doubt added to serve as documentary evidence of “the Scots continuing Design to invade England” (36) but also to condemn the insincerity of the very declaration to which they were responding, since one of Loudoun’s letters gives the impression that the Declaration was imposed on Charles; or, as the introduction to the letters puts it, the dissembling formality of their Kings Repentence, so much cryed up by them, upon his emitting (as they call it) this Declaration, and obtruded upon their credulous multitudes, and swallowed by their Party here for Interest sake … ‘twas drawn by them [the Kirk party] in terminis, and extorted from him [Charles] with Minatory importunities. (36) Substantial newsbook response to these letters followed directly upon the publication of Answer of the Parliament, varying in the number of letters printed and in the brand of commentary offered. Mercurius Politicus printed all four letters, laid out almost identically to those in the pamphlet, for “wider publication” of the material, as Nedham puts it, following these with straightforward but also sarcastic observations that reference Loudoun’s control of a Charles portrayed as a callow boy easily manipulated: In the three first Letters, you may see how sweet my Lord Chancellor is upon the Baby with his obsequious Complements, strawing [i.e., strewing] Sugar-plums in every line; As long as he was obedient and towardly, his Lordship could cogg and collogue [i.e., flatter] in the stile of Most gracious Soveraign [in reference to the salutation of

242  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters the first three letters], but as soon as hee [Charles] startled and fell off from Grace, that is, from the Kirk’s Declaration, it was no more most gracious, but plain, SIR [referring to the salutation of the last letter]; And if hee had not come again at last, like a good Boy … they would have snapt him up next with downright Sirra. 231 If Charles as the “yong Lad of Scotland,” the “Baby-King,” the “Baby Majesty” to whom the Scottish Parliament (in a facetious play on orb, crown, and scepter) “promised … a Bell, a Bib, and a Rattle” in making him the Scots king was not a circulating narrative, it was at least a ­favorite of Nedham to infantalize Charles as immature and naïve. 232 Severall Proceedings in Parliament also printed all four letters along with prefatory material, while Perfect Diurnall reprinted a large part of the introductory remarks to the letters in the pamphlet but refers readers to the pamphlet for the letters in full. 233 The captured Loudoun letters also found their way into the Edinburgh edition of The King of ­Scotlands Negotiations at Rome for Assistance against the Common-Wealth of England, as Also Severall Letteres of the Chancellour of Scotland to the King since His Coming into Scotland, Taken in His Cabinet at the Late Fight Neer Dunbar (1650 / K572), whose first set of documents was printed in the London edition (1650, Sept. 6 T / K571) published before the Loudoun letters were taken. The Edinburgh edition is by no means a coherent attempt to place the Loudoun letters into a context of Catholic scheming, as they constitute a non sequitur tagged to the end of the collection; however, preceding the Loudoun letters in the ­Edinburgh edition and concluding the London edition is a reprinting of the 1623 letter exchange between Pope Gregory XV and Charles I when he was prince, which is introduced, “this Negotiation with Rome [between the Scots king and the pope] is not without example of the King of Scotland’s father” (on pages 11 and 29, respectively); Charles’s letter— reprinted often throughout the 1640s—implicates both father and son in a long-standing relationship with the Vatican. 234

The Popish Plot We saw in Chapter 2 that the commencement of the Popish Plot accusations in late 1678 and the expiration of the Licensing Act in May of the following year stimulated a number of satirical intercepted letters to be printed. Authentic discovered letters also began to be printed in late 1678, beginning with those of Edward Colman, a prominent Catholic courtier in the circle of James, Duke of York, and former secretary to Mary of Modena. 235 The day after Titus Oates implicated Colman in the Popish Plot, Colman’s home was searched, and letters in French and in cipher documenting his attempts to negotiate secretly with the papal and French courts were brought to the Commons. 236 On October 31, three

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  243 letters from the first cache were taken special note of: two addressed to François de La Chaise, confessor to Louis XIV; and one received from La Chaise, all from 1675. All were written into the record. 237 More of Colman’s letters were taken, including one in vinegar or lemon juice. 238 Debate in the Commons regarding publication of these three letters revolved around issues of the letters’ potential as evidence, both in a court of law and in the public eye. Thomas Littleton argued that printing the letters in advance of Colman’s trial would confer on him no advantage, and Silas Titus concurred that “It is most requisite these Letters should be printed, to convince the world that such transactions have been.”239 Secretary Joseph Williamson, on the other hand, proposed to delay publication until after Colman’s trial, and Secretary Henry Coventry warned of placing a preconceived narrative overtop of the letters when the letters alone do not demonstrate evidence of Oates’s testimony of a Catholic plot to murder Charles: “Do you see any thing in the Letters of raising an Army, or the Conspiracy of the King’s death? To print these Letters will be but a half thing.”240 In due course the Commons voted to print the three letters and Charles II acquiesced, but he required the concurrence of the Lords, who on November 11 refused. 241 On ­November 22 the Commons again asked the Lords to concur, but they declined—due to the influence of Charles’s brother James, Duke of York, on the upper house. 242 The three letters were nevertheless printed in The Tryal of Edward Coleman (1678 / T2185), published in late December. The publication also included a fourth letter, designated in the pamphlet as “The Copy of the Letter written to Monsieur Le Chese … which Mr. Coleman confessed he himself wrote, and counterfeited in the Duke [of York’]s Name” (66). 243 The authorship of this fourth letter was contentious for, in late December—perhaps immediately after Tryal of Edward ­Coleman came out—all four letters appeared as Mr. Coleman’s Two Letters to Mon­ oleman, sieur L’Chaise … with Monsieur L’Chaise’s Answer to Mr.  C Which the House of Commons Desired Might Be Printed; Together with the D[uke] of Y[ork]’s Letter to the Said Monsieur L’Chaise, Which Sheweth What Mr. Coleman Wrote to Him Was by His Special Command and Appointment (1678 / C5046). 244 This was an illicit publication with the government offering a reward of £100 to anyone who turned in the printer responsible—not for printing the Colman and La Chaise letters but because of the unambiguous attribution of the controversial letter to James “By which his R. H. the Duke of York is ­Libelled, and most Scandalously Aspersed.”245 This fourth letter suggests that James supported Colman’s earlier letters and that Louis’s “Interests and mine [James’s] were so strictly bound up together, that such as opposed either, ought to be look’d upon as the Enemies of the other,” as part of the letter reads. 246 The letter also indirectly involved King Charles in  the machinations since in the letter (and in others) Colman sought

244  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters a loan from King Louis for Charles so that Charles could dissolve Parliament. 247 The disputed letter was never recorded as discussed by the Commons, but the purpose of attributing the letter to James was of course to tie James to Colman’s machinations since, at his trial, Colman took responsibility for this letter, claiming that he wrote it in James’s name but without his knowledge. 248 According to John Miller, this letter, actually from October 1674 (not 1675 as stated in the pamphlet) was likely addressed to Louis XIV’s Secretary of State Simon Arnauld de Pomponne (not La Chaise) and was indeed drafted in James’s name without James’s authorization—but it was never sent. 249 However, the full title of Mr. Coleman’s Two Letters suggests that one of the pamphlet’s principal purposes was to demonstrate that this letter was in fact by James and therefore to condemn James rather than to denounce Colman—who had already been executed by the time of publication. Mr.  Coleman’s Two Letters reconfirms an association between James and the discovered letters already well established: for instance, when on November 21 the Lords agreed with James’s request to be exempt from the bar to Catholics to serve in Parliament, the Commons responded with cries of “Coleman’s letters! Coleman’s letters!”250 The discovery of the four letters and their manifestation in news, ­debate, and print were instrumental in sparking the fuse of the P ­ opish Plot. Miller observes that “The popular acceptance (among Protestants) of Titus Oates’s allegations of a Popish Plot owed much to the … ­discovery of Edward Coleman’s letters”; the same day Colman’s letters were read into the record came a resolution from the Commons that the Popish Plot was indeed a reality. 251 While John Dryden considered that “Mr. Colemans Letters … are the best Evidence [of a plot]; and what they discover, without wyre-drawing their Sence, or malicious Glosses, all Men of reason conclude credible,” Roger North observed instead the emotional impact of the letters on a populace whose collective imagination was fired by the likelihood of a plot: The discovery of Coleman’s papers … made as much noise in and about London, and indeed all over the nation, as if the very Cabinet of Hell had been laid open … People’s passions would not let them attend to any reason or deliberation on the matter … so as one might have denied Christ with more content than the plot. 252 North’s remarks are very similar to those made by John Nalson when he reflected on the two letters in the 1642 broadsheet Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman: “these Letters quickly got into Print, and … confirm[ed] the Credulous Multitude in the belief of a great and horrid Plot of the Papists and Episcopal Protestants against the Parliament.”253 Both of these evaluations imply the persuasive agency of intercepted and discovered letters.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  245 Another unauthorized publication of some of the letters discovered in Colman’s cache, The Popish Damnable Plot (T1879A), was printed sometime during the first half of November 1680. 254 It contains précis of 60 letters with substantial concluding commentary by Ezerel Tonge, who received the abstracts of the letters from a scrivener. The purpose of republicizing Colman’s letters during November 1680 is made clear on the title page, since it is indicated there that they are relevant to “the [Exclusion] Bill against the Duke of York, and expected Tryals of the [five Catholic] Lords” accused as Popish Plot conspirators. The publisher, printer, and others were called in to answer for the publication— namely, for printing letters under the guardianship of MP George Treby, chair of the Committee of Secrecy dedicated to investigating the Popish Plot, and for content that reflected on MP Edward Dering. One Captain Yarrington, upon questioning, explained that “at such a Place there were Copies, and they were given out for money” and that after the copy was produced he “showed the Original to several Members, and they were zealous to have it made known to the Nation.”255 The evident availability of abstracts also accounts for another like—but briefer—publication, An Abstract of the Contents of Several Letters Relating to the Management of Affairs with Rome by the D[uke] of Y[ork] and Others (1679 or 1680 / A131), whose introduction is as virulently anti-Catholic as anything Tonge would later write in Popish Damnable Plot. Containing only 30 abstracts, many only a sentence or two in length, Abstract of the Contents of Several Letters came out before Popish Damnable Plot, between the dissolution of the Habeas Corpus Parliament on July 12, 1679, and the first sitting of the Exclusion Bill Parliament on October 21, 1680, because, unlike Tonge’s pamphlet, it was never called in by the Commons even though it would have also transgressed upon Treby’s stewardship of Colman’s letters; the editor who prepared the pamphlet concludes by referring to letters in the “Custody of the late secret Committee of the House of Commons, and [which] are not to be opened until the next Parliament” (7). On May 19, 1679, Treby had indeed been ordered to prepare abstracts of some of the letters concerning James; however, abstracts of the letters were made as early as their initial examinations in Parliament between October and December 1678. 256 The appearance of Popish Damnable Plot seems to have in part spurred a motivation to finally print officially several of the letters in full. Two days after Popish Damnable Plot was called into the Commons, John Hotham moved that the letters be printed and Treby agreed stating, “I presume you intend not to have abstracts, but ipsissima verba, for there are allegories in them, which must be interpreted.”257 Roughly two weeks later the official order came and early the following year A Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott (1681 / T2102) and The Second Part of the Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott (1681 / T2104)

246  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters appeared, edited by Treby. 258 Treby, in addition to heading the Committee of Secrecy, was among the lawyers prosecuting William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford, one of the five imprisoned Catholic lords. The Commons’ order to publish these letters came in concert with the trial of Stafford, and Colman’s letters are mentioned throughout the proceedings. 259 The four well-known letters come near the conclusion of volume one of these sizable collections of just over 100 full and partial letters. In contrast to Tonge’s anti-Catholic, anti-James polemic in Popish Damnable Plot, Treby’s Collection of Letters and Second Part of the Collection of Letters are principally evidentiary and documentary; there is nothing in the commentary to condemn James and the disputed letter concluding Mr. Coleman’s Two Letters is retitled “Coleman’s Letter to Monsieur le Chese … in the Duke of York’s name.” Treby instead emphasizes the authenticity of the correspondence, underlining its fidelity with a clear chain of evidence from Colman’s chambers to the printed page—likely a response to the abstracts in Popish Damnable Plot about which Treby had complained: Tonge had “printed the Letters false, and the Letters are as untrue as the Reflections he has made upon them.”260 Treby also underlines the secrecy of the correspondence by remarking upon the use of “Figurative words, or words of Cabal” in the first volume (To the Reader, v); by offering a letter, roughly a quarter of which is still in cipher, in the same volume; and by printing the cipher keys found with Colman’s correspondence in the second volume. As far as the various printings of Colman’s letters go, they chiefly revolved around how they related to James. Discussion of James’s role in the discovered letters is absent in the recorded Commons debates, and James quashed the possibility of publication when the Commons’ request came to the upper house. By attributing a perfidious letter to James and by teasing out of other discovered letters James’s involvement in the Popish Plot, the enemies of James, like Tonge, sought to underline the treachery manifest in long-standing and ongoing Catholic plotting. As Miller asserts, the letters ultimately “gave support and impetus to the movement to exclude James from the throne.”261 The discovered letters of others alleged to have participated in the Popish Plot were also printed. A few days after Colman’s letters were taken, two letters seized from Jesuit William Barrow (alias Harcourt, alias Waring, alias Harrison) were on November 2, 1678, recorded in the Commons Journal. 262 Both appeared in The Tryals and Condemnation of Thomas White Alias Whitebread … William Harcourt … John Fenwick … John Gavan Alias Gawen, and Anthony Turner (1679 / T2247).263 One of the letters, by Edward Petre, was key in determining a Jesuit conspiracy as it contains the words, Every one is minded also, not to hasten to London long before the time appointed, nor to appear much about the Town till the meeting

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  247 be over, lest occasion should be given to suspect the Design. Finally, Secresy, as to the time and place, is much recommended to all those that receive Summons. (37) These lines resemble those warning Monteagle of the Gunpowder Plot, and were reiterated throughout the early 1640s to identify Catholic plotting in many of the discovered letters I have explored in this chapter and in Chapter 1. Chief Justice Scroggs indeed underlines the ominous meanings of “Design” and “Secresy,” while codefendant Thomas ­W hitbread defends himself against Scroggs’s implications: “it is a very hard thing to bring so many mens lives in danger meerly upon the Interpretation of a word, which may as properly signify one thing as another” (38). Scroggs warns nevertheless in reference to this letter, “This is plain, unless you give a better answer to this Letter, the Letter will hang about your necks” (40). Other works revolving around letters, indicting ­Jesuits, and referencing the Gunpowder Plot were printed during the 1678–79 period, some of which were print letters redux; among them was The Gunpowder-Treason with a Discourse of the Manner of Its Discovery (1679 / B833-A), a reprint of A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the Late Most Barbarous Traitors (1606 / 11619-a, -a.5), while 1643’s Copy of a Letter Addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels was republished in an abbreviated version as A Copy of a Letter Written by a Jesuite to the Father-Rector at Bruxels Discovering Their Designs upon England … Anno 1627 (1679? / M1454A).264 Although the topic of equivocation was not discussed during Barrow’s trial, in a related pamphlet, The Papists New-Fashion’d Allegiance: A Letter Lately Seiz’d in the House of an Eminent Roman Catholick in Hereford-shire … Written by Father Harcourt (1679 / H696)—­attributed to Barrow—the subject is foremost. The letter bears the date of April 12, 1679, a month before Barrow was apprehended, but the pamphlet was evidently not printed until after Barrow’s execution on June 20, 1679.265 It is certainly a fiction, as Barrow had remained in London since 1678 until his arrest on May 9 of the following year, yet the preface to the letter specifies that Barrow was “at that time sculking up and down the Countrey” of Herefordshire ([1]). 266 The preface to the letter also indicates how papists “elude the Law by Swearing in such an abstruse Equivocating sence” (2), and in the letter itself Barrow is made to write, For though there be much harshness in the words [of an oath to the king], as to exclude our Acknowledgment and Adherence by Faith and Obedience unto our purely Spiritual Head; yet since we be admitted to make our own Sence … we only swear within such bounds as the Catholick Church and our Duty allows. (2)

248  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters A letter like this, as if from a Jesuit outlining the advantageous political uses of equivocation—information passed onto another Catholic, as the preface has it—is also meant to suggest that Jesuit letter writing is a dangerous mode of subversive communication. The equation of Catholicism—Jesuits in particular—and (secret) letter writing was a widespread cultural perception of this sort, evident throughout the seventeenth century. Another publication offering a discovered letter related to the trial of Barrow and the others—and likewise germane to the topic of ­equivocation—is the broadside Blundel the Jesuit’s Letter of Intelligence to His Friends the Jesuites at Cambray, Taken about Him When He Was Apprehended (1679 / B3362). In the letter, Benedictine Peter Caryll, writing to Benedictine nun Catherine Holt, describes the trial of the defendants, offering his version of events. The letter was either discovered in Caryll’s chambers or taken on Caryll when he was posting the letter. 267 How Caryll became known as Blundell (or as a Jesuit for that matter) is also unclear: Caryll may never have used Blundell as an alias (it may have been foisted on him by Oates), yet this broadside, which uses the alias of Blundell for Caryll, seems to have been published by someone with Catholic sympathies. 268 The straightforward printing of Blundel the Jesuit’s Letter, with no gloss or commentary on the letter, supports this likelihood, and the fact that at least two attacks on this publication were subsequently printed speaks to the contentiousness of the report of the trial contained in the letter. Caryll’s letter contains criticism of the execution of justice. Caryll, for instance, comments on Justice Scroggs’s “scoffing questions” to the defendants and highlights the noble comportment of the defendants, making “a most solemn and Religious protestation of their Innocence.” To counter any sense of sympathy that might have been stimulated by this print letter, the author of a broadside published late that same June—An Answer to Blundell the Jesuits Letter (1679 / A3353)—fulminates against the falsehoods in the letter, claiming, “No Wonder if the Jesuitick Order can Dissemble thus with their own Friends, and send them Fallacies … that they can Equivocate with us for their own Interest.” The next year, Henry Care also took issue with the accuracy of Caryll’s account and reprinted the entire letter in his The History of the Damnable Popish Plot (1680 / C522), but supplied detailed marginalia in animadversion of Caryll’s remarks. Care responds to Caryll’s criticism of Scroggs’s justice, for example, by claiming that Scroggs did not ask “scoffing questions,” even though “it might have been the most proper way of Examining such bold young Villains” (283), while Care contradicts Caryll’s reference to the defendants’ “solemn and Religious protestation of their Innocence” by observing that the defendants’ protestation “might be solemn, but could not be counted Religious by any but you, whose Religion consists in Lies and Blasphemous Hypocrisie” (283). 269

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  249 Whereas the letter was likely initially printed to arouse pity for the executed Catholics—in the same fashion that royalists printed their own intercepted letters to stir up sympathy for their correspondents— the animadversions shear away that compassion by casting everything Caryll wrote as a lie. As with Papists New-Fashion’d Allegiance, the responses to Blundel the Jesuit’s Letter suggest Catholic equivocation is manifested both in letters and by letters. The gimmicky epistolary fiction A Letter from a Jesuite, or The Mysterie of Equivocation, Being the Copy of a Letter of Recommendation Seeming Much in Favour of the Bearer but by Different Reading Rendred of Quite Contrary Signification (1679 / H1624) does this literally: the letter when read in full commends the bearer, but when the first “column” of the letter is read alone, it vilifies the bearer. In a broadsheet that ventriloquizes Pope Innocent XI, Pope’s Letter to the Lords in the Tower (1681 / P2936), Innocent refers to “our wonted [epistolary] Stile, [which is] full of … plausible Subtilties” (recto). Jesuit letter writing, as a species of equivocation, is underscored as two faced.

The 1688–1689 Revolution and Beyond Although few, the discovered letters printed during the Revolution of 1688–89 were, unsurprisingly, print letters redux revolving around James’s participation in the Popish Plot. Those four letters found among Colman’s papers were exploited in 1689, Colman’s and La Chaise’s letters appearing in Samuel Blackerby’s An Historical Account of Making the Penal Laws by the Papists against the Protestants (1689 / B3069); and, along with the letter written in James’s name, in State Tracts: Being a Collection of Several Treatises Relating to the Government Privately Printed in the Reign of K. Charles II (1689 / S5329) in which the disputed last letter is unambiguously attributed to James. 270 Volume one of Treby’s Collection of Letters saw another printing as The Intrigues of the French King and Others for Extirpating the Protestant Religion … Managed by Letters from Mr. Coleman to the French King’s Confessor, [and] the Pope’s Inter-Nuncio, Card. Norfolk (1689 / T2103A) with a passage from one of Colman’s letters to La Chaise printed directly on the title page. Ascribing the letter to James, Titus Oates prefaces it and the others in Eikon Basilike Tetarte, or The Picture of the Late King James Further Drawn to the Life (1697 / O40), writing as if addressing James directly, Truely Sir, Coleman’s Letters were such pregnant Proofs of your villanous Designs … [and] were testimony enough without the Addit[i]on of any further Evidence; but I will … set down the Letters as they have been published for the Satisfaction of Mankind. (83)

250  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters Some individuals during this time explain why the letter now confidently printed in James’s name was suppressed. Pierre Allix states in An Account of the Private League betwixt the Late King James the Second and the French King (1689 / A344), “There are Men enough that know, that the choice was made of the Letters that were to be published: they eclips’d and suppress’d those, wherein the Court and Duke of York were more particularly concern’d” (6), while another author condemns the intrigues behind the letters: ten times more of the particulars of that wretched design [the Popish Plot] had appear’d, if all Mr. Colemans latest Letters for two years and a half that were brought to Whitehal, and many culled out of the rest, had not been there supressed and kept from the sight of the Parliament. 271 Although Colman’s letters remained part of the public discourse in the decades after 1678—“Letters Confessed by him before thousands”—the specifically print manifestations of the letters are referenced in publications such as An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry’s Invitation of His Highness, the Prince of Orange, into England (1688 / A379), attributed to John Wildman, and Bethel Slingsby’s The Providences of God Observed Through Several Ages Towards This Nation (1691 / B2074). 272 Besides to directly condemn James, Oates had another use for the letter in question. He printed it again, in an abbreviated version, in A Tragedy Called the Popish Plot Reviv’d, Detecting the Secret League ­between the Late King James and the French King (1696 / O58). Following the letter, Oates writes, Review this, I intreat you, and deny it if you can, that these Kings were early of one Piece. The French King wrote himself to the Duke, yet we are to believe it if we will, that Coleman counterfeited this Answer, and his Royal Highness had not the good Breeding to acknowledg the Receipt of the Letter of so generous a Confederate, who offered the Use of his Purse against the Designs of THEIR ENEMIES. (9) Basing his rationale on epistolary etiquette, Oates’s approach to determining the meaning and purpose of this discovered letter is similar to Digby’s use of epistolary etiquette to explain his address to Henrietta Maria after his letter was intercepted and printed. Oates’s pamphlet was an attempt to string together the Popish Plot and the 1696 Jacobite Assassination Plot, and along with James’s letter, Oates quotes the germane passages of what he calls “Mr. Coleman’s never to be forgotten Letters”

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  251 (4) as proof. King Louis favored invasion over assassination, yet the plot was modeled by Oates and like-minded Williamites as part of the wide-ranging European conflict with Louis. 273 To support his claims, Oates exploited those four discovered letters written originally in 1674 and 1675, putting them to use more than 20 years later to again provide evidence of chronic Catholic plotting.

Conclusion Of intercepted, captured, and discovered letters, the type printed between 1678 and 1700 consisted chiefly of discovered correspondence; by contrast, during the civil wars those that saw print were principally intercepted and captured letters—and there were far more of the sort printed between 1641 and 1651 than of the kind printed between 1678 and 1700. Of course, it is rather obvious why this was so: ­E ngland was engaged in civil wars that pitted various factions against one another, and the prolonged martial context of this period explains why intercepted (and to a lesser extent, captured) letters characterize these 10 years. No similar context typified the years 1678 to 1683, where instead discovered letters epitomized the intrigues of the Popish Plot, crystallizing around the seized Colman letters. Publication tapered off during the 1688–1689 Revolution and its aftermath, an intermittent military context that did not witness intercepted or captured letters in print but instead saw the recapitulation of erstwhile discovered letters. Of all the letters I examine in this study, intercepted, captured, and discovered letters together constitute texts embodying the closest thing to genuine documentary evidence; they were not letters invented especially for print such as fictional and satirical letters, and were unlike familiar letters prepared or adapted for printed familiar letter collections. One’s intercepted, captured, and discovered letters were indeed used as evidence in criminal trials—as far as this study goes, these were in the trials of Charles I, Edward Colman, and Thomas Whitbread and William Barrow. 274 Perhaps because intercepted, captured, and discovered letters constituted genuine documentary proof, they may have had the most consequence as persuasion or propaganda of all the types of letters I investigate in this book. It is quite impossible to determine if the fact of the letters themselves, as documentary evidence, accounted for the cogency of the material; or if the ideological framing of, and the print adjuncts often surrounding, the letters did the persuading by shaping the letters to illustrate particular cultural narratives. In other words, was it the evidence itself or the presentation of that evidence that mattered most? In a court of law, is “Exhibit A” compelling on its own or does it require a prosecutor to argue its significance? No matter, one may contend, as long as the defendant is proven guilty.

252  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters

Notes 1 John Berkenhead, Cabala, or An Impartial Account of the Non-­Conformists Private Designs, Actings and Wayes (1663 / B2965), 34. 2 Brilliana Harley, Letters of the Lady Brilliana Harley, ed. Thomas ­Taylor Lewis (London: Camden Society, 1854), 149; Journals of the House of Commons, 13 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1802), 2:431, accessed via British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/ search/series/commons-jrnl (henceforth abbreviated as CJ). 3 Robert Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 3 vols., ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1841–1842), 2:285; Civicus, 107, June 5–12, 1645 (E.288[8]), 954; Parliaments Post, 5, June 3–10, 1645 (E.287[5]), 3; CJ, 4:167; Journals of the House of Lords, 42 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1767–1830), 7:416, accessed via British History Online, www.british-history.ac.uk/search/series/lords-jrnl (hereafter designated as LJ); Buchanan, 101. 4 Continuation, 30, Jan. 30–Feb. 2, 1643 (E.245[31]). 5 See, for instance, The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 19, May 9–16, 1643 (E.101[22]), 146–47. 6 CJ, 3:592. 7 Diary, 13, Aug. 15–22, 1644 (E.254[21]), 100; Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 68, Aug. 14–20, 1644 (E.6[29]), 545; Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 72, Sept. 10–17, 1644 (E.9[3]), 579. 8 See Joad Raymond on letters informing the structure of newsbooks: The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–1649 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 25. 9 Gary Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in England, 1500–1700 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005), 81. 10 Baillie, 2:506 (italics added). Aulicus, N/A, Mar. 16–23, 1645 (E.276[18]), 1516–18, indeed printed some of the letters Baillie mentions in piecemeal form, but Baillie seems to be thinking of a pamphlet that was printed the following month, Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle, the Earle of ­L anerick, Lord Warriston and Others (Oxford, 1645, Apr. 24T / A3661). 11 Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle, [Av]. 12 Sidney Bere writing to John Penington on July 8, 1641, makes a contemporary reference to the pamphlet. Since Bere wrote to Penington on July 1 and did not mention the pamphlet, it was likely printed between July 1 and 8. William Douglas Hamilton, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I, 1641–1643 (London: Her Majesty’s ­Stationery Office, 1887), 46 (hereafter the series is abbreviated as CSPD). 13 LJ, 4:286; see also CJ, 2:185. 14 Maija Jansson, ed., Proceedings in the Opening Session of the Long Parliament, House of Commons, 7 vols. (Rochester: Rochester University Press, 2000–2007), 5:315, 323, 326. 15 See my “The Sources and Authorship of The Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips (1641),” The Library, 7th ser., 19.1 (Mar. 2018): 3–18; the author of the two May 6 letters is likely priest George Leyburn. 16 Prynne, Hidden Workes of Darkenes Brought to Publike Light (1645 / P3973), 214–15; Rushworth, Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, 8 vols. (London, 1721), 4:257. I quote from P2039. 17 CSPD Charles I, 1641–1643, 46 (brackets in original). 18 CJ, 2:268; Jansson, 6:522. 19 Jansson, 5:33, 45, 48.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  253 20 Diurnall Occurrences, 159–62. 21 John Nalson, An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, 2 vols. (1682–1683 / N106-A, N107-A), 2:317. I quote from N107. Nalson writes sardonically of Pym’s epistolary artifices in another circumstance, that “Mr. Pym … never wanted a Letter of dangerous Consequence, though of his own Contrivance, to help them out at a dead lift” (2:309). 22 E28, E28Aa (broadsides, both printed for Hunscott), E28B (broadside). It is identified as E2620 on the University Microfilms International microfilm set (Early English Books, 1641–1700) (see ESTC), while it is given as E2619 in Sheila Lambert, Printing for Parliament, 1641–1700, List and Index Society, Special Series, 20 (1984), 6 (hereafter abbreviated as PP). Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman has been discussed briefly by Ethan Howard Shagan, “Constructing Discord: Ideology, Propaganda, and English Responses to the Irish Rebellion of 1641,” The Journal of British Studies 36.1 (Jan. 1997): 29 (4–34); and John M. Wallace, “‘Examples Are Best Precepts’: Readers and Meanings in Seventeenth-Century Poetry,” Critical Inquiry 1.2 (Dec. 1974): 274n4 (273–90). 23 Edward Hyde, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, 6 vols., ed. William Dunn Macray (Oxford: Clarendon, 1888), 1:513. 24 Hyde, 1:513. 25 Willson H. Coates, et al., eds., The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 3 January to 5 March 1642 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 33 (cited hereafter as Private Journals, vol. 1). 26 Hyde, 1:514. 27 Private Journals, 1:33, 34. 28 Private Journals, 1:54. The year prior, D’Ewes also believed a discovered letter of Lady Jane Shelley contained “matter of great weight” (Jansson, 4:339–40). See Chapter 1 (26–28). 29 CJ, 2:369; LJ, 4:504. 30 PP, 6 (Lambert cites CJ, 2:369); Sheila Lambert, “The Beginning of Printing for the House of Commons, 1640–42,” The Library, 6th ser., 3 (1981): 53, 59 (43–61). 31 PP, 30. The letter is on [A3v–A4v]. Other impressions from 1642 include E1313, E1314, E1315, and E1317A. 32 Vindication of the Parliament has several ESTC numbers: W808aA, W808bA, W808cA, W808dA (identified by ESTC as V521 on the University Microfilms International microfilm set [Early English Books, 1641–1700]; it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online). I quote from W808aA. 33 Private Journals, 1:33. Culpepper and Falkland were also indicted as ­Catholic conspirators in the epistolary fiction A Letter of High Consequence … Directed to Colonell Lunsford, Scattered in the Church of Saint Paul (1642 / L1573): see Chapter 1 (38). 34 John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: William Heinemann, 1972), 32. 35 The Monteagle letter reads, My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation, therefore I would advise you as you tender your life to devise some excuse to shift your attendance at this parliament, for God and man have concurred to punish the wickedness of this time, and think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country, where you may expect the event in safety, for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow this parliament and yet they shall not see who hurts them, this counsel is not

254  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters to be condemned because it may do you good and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you. Located at www.parliament.uk, http://www.parliament.uk/educationresources/­Parliament%20explained%20articles/ lord-monteagle-letterpdf.pdf. 36 Hyde quoted in ODNB, 7:571: Bridgeman was a “committed and outspoken royalist” and supported “Laudian innovations in the church.” 37 Nalson, 2:836. Nalson even offers evidence that Anthony Weldon was the actual author of the letters (2:837–38). 38 Nalson, 2:837. 39 The other letter is “The Copy of a Letter Sent by Mr. Hearne … unto one Mr. Napper a Catholick, and now an Inhabitant in Hollowell in O ­ xford, Jan 7. 1641.” There is also a reference to a letter “from a great Papist in Ireland” in Diurnall Occurrences in Parliament, N/A, Jan. 2–10, 1642 (E.201[6]), 6, as having been referred to a parliamentary subcommittee. 40 In Matters of Note, there is notice that the “nefarious conspiracy of theirs was discovered by a Letter sent from L. M. a Jesuite, to R. C. a Popish Lord, and was found by a Gentleman neere White-Hall. This Letter did containe many prodigious things included in it, obscurely mentioning of some private treachery which was intended against the Parliament and Citie of London, and did give the Lord notice to be absent at such a time, when the plot was to be delivered” (2). This content is also in The Papists Designe against the Parliament and Citie of London (1642 / M53), A2v–A3, but the pamphlet does not contain a text of the letter. This is yet another recapitulation of the Gunpowder Plot letter warning William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, to leave the city (see my note 35 for the text of the Monteagle letter). 41 ODNB, 60:422. I quote from M2923. 42 Compare Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips: “the Puritans, if they durst, would pull the good Queen in pieces, can the good King of France suffer a Daughter of France his Sister … to be thus affronted[?]” (1). Harry F. Snapp also comments briefly on this pamphlet: “Church and State Relations in Early Caroline England,” Journal of Church and State 9:3 (Autumn 1967): 344–45 (332–48). 43 One could also include in this complex of material The Truest Relation of the Discoverie of a Damnable Plot in Scotland … with the Copy of a Letter Sent to the Papists in London Whereby Is Discovered Some Plotting About the Tower (1641 / T3137), in which one Catholic writes to another in ­London his wish that “We must be revenged on this base City” ([A4v]). David A. O’Hara recognizes that newsbooks supported these narratives in their reportage: English Newsbooks and Irish Rebellion, 1641–1649 ­(Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006), 31–32. 44 PP, 24, 42. 45 PP, 77. 46 CJ, 2:865; LJ, 5:461. The Lords Journal gives the full text of the letter that was later printed. 47 Speciall Passages, 16, Nov. 22–29, 1642 (E.128[28]), 138. A summary is also in Perfect Diurnall, 24, Nov. 21–28, 1642 (E.242[26]), [Z4v]. 48 LJ, 5:461. 49 I quote from G1303E. 50 Florene S. Memegalos, George Goring (1608–1657): Caroline Courtier and Royalist General (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 135.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  255 51 Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 152. 52 ODNB, 40:760. 53 PP, 140. See also Samuel Rawson Gardiner, The History of the Great Civil War, 1642–1649, new ed., 4 vols. (London: Longman, Green, 1894), 4:60–61. 54 CJ, 2:431. As Digby himself writes regarding the letters, I committed a Packet [to a carrier who] brought it to a hand [Pym’s] well contented with any occasion to satisfie his own particular private malice, and revenge upon me; and so my letters … were publikely brought to be read in both houses of Parliament. (The Lord George Digbies Apologie for Himself [Oxford, 1643, Jan. 4 / B4761], 10). This authentic intercepted letter of Digby generated a fictional response from the queen, which I examine in Chapter 1; both are quoted in full on pages 41–42 there. 55 CJ, 2:443. Digby’s letter to the queen contains similar phrases and ideas, but the content Evelyn quotes seems to be derived chiefly from the Dives letter; Digby’s letter to the queen also does not contain the expression, “Traitors that bear the Sway.” 56 PP, 8. 57 The second letter in the pamphlet, “Joyfull News from Ireland, or a true relation of the great overthrow which the English gave the Rebels before Droheda,” however, was ordered to be printed on March 7 and was printed separately as L2831 (CJ, 2:469; PP, 9). 58 CJ, 2:432. The fact of the intercepted letters is reported in Continuation of the True Diurnall of Passages in Parliament, 6, Feb. 7–14, 1642 (E.201[18]), 42, but no epistolary content is given. 59 PP, 17. The Declaration or Remonstrance exists as E1517 (printed for Hunscott) and E1518. It is also titled A Remonstrance or Declaration of the State of the Kingdom (R1023) as well as A Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom (Digby’s letter to Dives is in E2222A, E2223B, E2223aA only). These also include Digby’s letter to the queen on the final page of each. Both letters were republished in 1643 when they were included in An Answer to the Lord George Digbies Apology (1643, Mar. 2T / A3421), 68–69. Content from Digby’s letter was used to support the securing of the magazine in Hull in The Declaration, Votes, and Order of Assistance of Both Houses of Parliament (1642 / E1520-A), 1, 7; and in Richard Ward’s Vindication of the Parliament, 7. 60 LJ, 5:169. A Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament prints a brief summary of the letter, noting that it was read in session: 3, June 27–July 4, 1642 (E.202[13]), 6. 61 CJ, 2:646, 647. 62 LJ, 5:171, 177. 63 PP, 25. 64 The original letter is not extant among the Sessional Papers (formerly the Main Papers) in the records of the House of Lords. 65 This broadside is reprinted in The Last Newes from Yorke and Hull (1642, July 7 / H138). 66 PP, 25. The entire broadside containing the Wilmot letter is also printed with one of the Rotterdam letters in one of the impressions of Another Declaration of the Lords and Commons (1642, July 7 / E1217). 67 LJ, 5:171. 68 PP, 25.

256  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters 69 Perfect Diurnall, 4, July 4–11, 1642 (E.202[15]), 4; Raymond, Invention, 35. 70 PP, 29. The letters were also printed with the title Certaine Observations of Both Houses of Parliament Concerning Two Letters, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queenes Majesty, the Other from Mr. Thomas Eliot at York to the Lord Digby in Holland (1642, Aug. 6 / E1271B). 71 CJ, 2:697; LJ, 5:249. Perfect Diurnall, 7, July 25–Aug. 1, 1642 (E.202[27]), [G4v] (printed for John Johnson) reports that Warwick had intercepted a Post going for Holland with Letters, and that hee demanded to see what letters he [the post] had whereupon he shewed him some Letters, but the said Earle suspecting that he had more, examined him, who swore very stoutly, sinke him and dam him, if he had any more[,] but being a strong presumption that he had more letters, he was put into a place by himself in the stern of a ship and kept fasting so long til at last he confessed that on the outside of the ship did hang a boxe which was kept down in the water by a peice of lead being put therin. There is an even more comical version of this same interception in Perfect ­Diurnall, 7, July 25–Aug. 1, 1642 (E.202[28]), 8 (printed for William Cooke). 72 CJ, 2:700. 73 More Joyfull Newes from Hull (1642, Aug. 2 / M2704A), [A4–A4v]; ­Perfect Diurnall, 7, July 25–Aug. 1, 1642 (E.202[28]), 8; and Some Special Passages from London, 11, Aug. 1–9, 1642 (E.109[35]), 3. 74 Perfect Diurnall, 7, July 25–Aug. 5, 1642 (E.202[28]), 8; More Joyfull Newes from Hull, [A4v] (quoting from M2704A); Perfect Diurnall, N/A, Aug. 1–8, 1642 (E.202[31]), 2. 75 I quote from B4784. 76 Second set of brackets in original. There were counterfeit editions of The Lord George Digbies Apologie published in London: B4762, B4762A, and B4762 variant. See Falconer Madan, Oxford Books: A Bibliography of Printed Works Relating to the University and City of Oxford or Printed or Published There, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895–1931), 2:203. 77 See also Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 55. 78 CJ, 2:653, 915. 79 CJ, 2:948. 80 LJ, 5:578; CJ, 2:949. 81 Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages, 30, Jan. 30– Feb. 2, 1643 (E.245[31]), 8; Perfect Diurnall, 34, Jan. 30–Feb. 6, 1643 (E.246[1]), [Ll3v]. 82 CJ, 2:997. The letter is summarized with some commentary in Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 11, Mar. 7–14, 1643 (E.93[6]), 83; in Continuation of Certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages, 36, Mar. 9–16, 1643 (E.246[45]), 4; and in Speciall Passages and Certain Informations, 31, Mar. 7–14, 1643 (E.93[7]), 253. 83 CJ, 3:72. An order of the following day placed John Glyn in charge of carefully preparing the letters (CJ, 3:73). In this order letters plural are indicated; this order therefore appears to include the March 2 letter as well as those found on Northampton. 84 PP, 56. ESTC notes that a date of May 15 is on one of the impressions, while Thomason wrote May 17 on his copy. 85 The second letter is deciphered in Mary Anne Everett Green, Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria (London: Richard Bentley, 1857), 174–75. 86 CJ, 3:72.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  257 87 Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 14, Mar. 28–Apr. 4, 1643 (E.95[2]), 108; Potter, 39. I located no CJ, LJ, or PP reference to this declaration, however. 88 See also Chapter 1 (40). 89 Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 20, May 16–23, 1643 (E.103[8]), 156–[60]. 90 Continuation, 46, May 18–25, 1643 (E.104[6]), 4; Perfect Diurnall, 49, May 15–22, 1643 (E.249[8]), unpaginated (last page). 91 Civicus, 2, May 11–18, 1643 (E.102[8]), B2v. 92 Gardiner points this out (Civil War, 1:99) but offers no examples; see, for instance, Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 23, June 6–13, 1643 (E.105[33]), 178; and A Weekly Accompt, 1, July 3–10, 1643 (E.249[25]), [A3]. ­Gardiner is referenced in Potter, 59. 93 The imprint has June 3 as its publication date, but Madan gives the date as June 10 (2:268) based on a reference in Aulicus. Other imprints: C2231 (printed in Shrewsbury by Robert Baker), C2233A (published in York by Stephen Bulkley), and C2233, a London counterfeit edition (printed by Richard Royston) (ESTC). The king’s intercepted letters were later recuperated in Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae (2 vols., 1650 / C2072), 1:227–29. 94 Potter, 156. 95 Potter, 55. 96 CJ, 3:28, 30. Scouts had been laid to intercept letters going between Hull and Parliament the year before (Bulstrode Whitelocke, Memorials of the English Affairs, 4 vols. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1853], 1:168). Madan suggests a date of around April 19 for the pamphlet’s publication (2:253). 97 Aulicus, 16th week, Apr. 22, 1643 (E.100[18]), 195–96. 98 Aulicus dates its publication to June 17: 24th week, June 17, 1643 (E.56[11]), 320. 99 Madan, 2:270. Madan never saw a copy of this publication but refers to it in his Oxford Books based on a reference to it in Aulicus; however, the only extant text I located was printed in York by royalist printer Stephen Bulkley. 100 Aulicus, 27th week, July 9, 1643 (E.60[18]), 358–59. 101 Thomason marked his copy with April 24; and though Madan suggests April 17 as its publication date (2:390), Aulicus writes of these intercepted letters as “now printed” in its April 6–13 issue (E.279[8]), 1540. 102 On the other hand, Madan suggests that “the despondent character of the letters induced the King to send the originals on to the Parliamentary commander” (2:276). 103 Aulicus, N/A, Mar. 16–23, 1645 (E.276[18]), 1516. 104 Aulicus, N/A, Apr. 6–13, 1645 (E.279[8]), 1540. 105 Aulicus, 24th week, June 17, 1643 (E.56[11]), 320. 106 Aulicus, 52nd week, Dec. 30, 1643 (E.81[19]), 740. 107 The date of c. July 20 is suggested by Madan (2:278), who also implies the letter is fictional. 108 LJ, 6:127, 144. 109 CJ, 5:604, 605. 110 William Cobbett, ed., Cobbett’s Parliamentary History of England, vols. 1–12 (London: Various Publishers, 1806–1812), vol. 3, col. 902. 111 CJ, 5:594. 112 William Douglas Hamilton, ed., CSPD Charles I, 1648–1649 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1893), 122–23, but dated June 12 whereas the letter in the broadside is dated June 13. 113 CJ, 5:467. It is summarized in one sentence in Perfect Occurrences, 60, Feb. 18–25, 1648 (E.520[41]), 425. 114 Bellicus, 5, Feb. 22–29, 1648 (E.429[15]), 3.

258  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters 115 Laura Lunger Knoppers, Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton’s Eve (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 43–62. 116 CJ, 5:684. 117 Cobbett writes that the letter was ordered to be sealed up in a box; which accounts for its not being entered in the Journals of either house; nor is it taken notice of by Mr. Whitlocke or Mr. Rushworth; but is printed at large by a Journalist of this time [Nedham], and agrees exactly with the copy thereof given in Royston’s [1662] edition of the King’s Works [i.e., Basilika: The Works of King Charles, 2 vols. (C2075), 1:349]. (vol. 3, col. 999)

118 119 120 21 1 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 33 1 134 135 136

137 138

139 140

The letter was also printed by Bernard Alsop in Perfect Weekly Account, 26, Sept. 13–20, 1648 (E.464[21]), Cc2v–[Cc3], with no editorial comment. Pragmaticus, 25, Sept. 12–19, 1648 (E.464[12]), [Ii4r–v]. Aulicus, 12th week, Mar. 23, 1644 (E.40[32]), 891; 11th week, Mar. 16, 1644 (E.40[6]), 883. Aulicus, N/A, Mar. 16–23, 1645 (E.276[18]), 1518. Britanicus, 77, Mar. 31–Apr. 7, 1645 (E.276[19]), 709. Aulicus, N/A, Mar. 23–30, 1645 (E.278[2]), 1522. Britanicus, 78, Apr. 7–14, 1645 (E.278[3]), 717. Aulicus, 42nd week, Oct. 21, 1643 (E.74[10]), 589. See also 48th week, Dec. 2, 1643 (E.78[16]), 687. Aulicus, 44th week, Nov. 4, 1643 (E.75[37]), 629–30. The reference is to the intercepted material later published as The Popes Brief (1643, Dec. 7 / U128). CJ, 3:264. CJ, 3:271. CJ, 3:307; 3:257, 264. PP, 74. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 35, Dec. 5–13, 1643 (E.78[14]), 267, 268. True Informer, 12, Dec. 2–9 (E.78[9]), 94, 95. John Lowe, “The Campaign of the Irish Royalist Army in Cheshire, ­November 1643–January 1644,” Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 111 (1959): 58–59 (47–76). CJ, 3:362; LJ, 6:375–76. Raymond, Invention, 28. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 39, Jan. 9–16, 1644 (E.29[4]), 298. Aulicus, 2nd week, Jan. 13, 1644 (E.30[1]), 773. Among the many newsbooks that reported the interception and summarized the letters are Perfect Diurnall, 25, Jan. 8–15, 1644 (E.252[16]), 198; and The Scotish Dove, 13, Jan. 5–12, 1644 (E.81[27]), 104. Occurrences of Certain Speciall and Remarkable Passages in Parliament emphasizes the list of arms included in the letter by printing it in an exceptionally large font: 2, Jan. 5–12, 1644 (E.81[26]), unsigned (last page). Memegalos, in her biography of Goring, refers to this letter and appears to have no doubts about its authenticity (156–57). PP, 77; CJ, 3:358–59; LJ, 6:367. Digby’s letter to Henry de Vic read first in the Lords was written into the record (LJ, 6:368). The letters first noticed in the Commons were read into the Lords Journal on January 8 (LJ, 6:370–71). A fuller summary of events is in Bertha Meriton Gardiner, A Secret Negociation with Charles the First, 1643–1644 in The Camden Miscellany, n.s. 31, vol. 8 (London: Camden Society, 1883), iv–vii. CJ, 3:362.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  259 141 142 143 144 145

46 1 147 148 149 150

51 1 152 153 154 155

156 57 1 158 59 1 160 161 162 163 164

Civicus, 34, Jan. 4–11, 1644 (E.81[22]), 364. Perfect Diurnall, 25, Jan. 8–15, 1644 (E.252[16]), 196–97. Britanicus, 20, Jan. 4–11, 1644 (E.81[20]), 159. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 38, Jan. 2–9, 1644 (E.81[13]), 290; Perfect Diurnall similarly points out the queen’s involvement: 25, Jan. 8–15, 1644 (E.252[16]), 196. The notice may also be referring to the unofficial pamphlet A Copie of Certaine Letters Which Manifest the Designe of the Late Discovered Plot. First, His Majesties Letter to the City of London. Secondly, the Lord Digbies Letter to Sir Bazill Brooke. Lastly, Other Intercepted Letters Touching the Same Businesse (1644, Jan. 10T / C6193, C2166) that came out the day the order to be printed was made. Civicus, 34, Jan. 11–18, 1644 (E.29[12]), 369 (mispaginated as 669). CJ, 3:367; PP, 77. Civicus, 35, Jan. 18–25, 1644 (E.30[7]), 373, 374. CJ, 4:183. Among them, Diary reports on their capture and their reading in Parliament: 58, June 19–26, 1645 (E.289[15]), [Hhhh4v]. Mercurius Veridicus gives summaries of a few letters: 11, June 21–28, 1645 (E.290[8]), 81–83; while True Informer gives an overall summary in Number 10, June 28, 1645 (E.290[10]), 73–74, 75–76, as does Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 105, June 17–24, 1645 (E.289[3]), 845. Scotish Dove, 88, June 20–27, 1645 (E.290[5]), 691. Perfect Occurrences, 26, June 20–27, 1645 (E.262[13]), Cc2. For instance, Moderate Intelligencer, 18, June 26–July 3, 1645 (E.292[3]), 142; and Perfect Diurnall, 101, June 30–July 7, 1645 (E.262[17]), 800. Perfect Diurnall, 100, June 23–30, 1645 (E.262[14]), 792, 793; Moderate Intelligencer, 17, June 19–26, 1645 (E.289[17]), 135. CJ, 4:190; LJ, 7:467. Printer John (?) Ramsey was called before the Lords on July 9 and briefly imprisoned for printing some of the king’s letters (LJ, 7:490, 495); yet another report indicates that Peter Cole, John Field, and James Mesole continued to print them (D. F. McKenzie and Maureen Bell, eds., A Chronology and Calendar of Documents Relating to the London Book Trade, 1641–1700, 3 vols. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 1:147–48). If they did, I have not been able to locate them. See for instance Moderate Intelligencer, 18, June 26–July 3 (E.292[3]), 142; and Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 106, June 24–July 1, 1645 (E.290[16]), 847. Perfect Diurnall, 100, June 23–30, 1645 (E.262[14]), 792. Veridicus, 11, June 21–28, 1645 (E.290[8]), 82; reproduced with m ­ inor changes in Perfect Occurrences, 26, June 20–27, 1645 (E.262[13]), Cc2–Cc2v. Civicus, 111, July 3–10, 1645 (E.292[18]), 984. Britanicus, 89, June 30–July 7, 1645 (E.292[10]), 801. Perfect Occurrences, 26, June 20–27, 1645 (E.262[13]), Cc. Veridicus, 11, June 21–28, 1645 (E.290[8]), 83. Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 107, July 1–8, 1645 (E.292[15]), 850. True Informer, 11, July 5, 1645 (E.292[9]), 87–88, also reports on the public reading. July 14 is Thomason’s date and is also given by Moderate Intelligencer, 20, July 10–17, 1645 (E.293[6]), 159. Kings Cabinet Opened was registered on July 9. G. E. Briscoe Eyre and G. R. Rivington, eds., A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers from 1640–1708, 3 vols. (London: Privately Printed, 1913–1914), 1:181.

260  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters 165 Letter 28 (29), though numbered as a distinct letter in the pamphlet, appears to be the postscript to the prior letter; I do not count it as a separate letter or document, therefore, though I otherwise retain the numeration in Kings Cabinet Opened in subsequent references to the letters. I use the numeration given in Kings Cabinet Opened for the seven other documents but designate them as “Items.” They include the instructions of Edward Somerset, Earl of Glamorgan, to Edward Bosdon presented to the king, March 21, 1644 (Item 20, p. 19); a petition of Colonel John Fitzwilliam from the queen to the king, May 16, 1645 (Item 21, p. 21); memorials for Secretary Edward Nicholas concerning Uxbridge, February 1644 (Item 24, p. 25); directions for the Uxbridge Commissioners (Item 25, p. 25); an oath taken by the Uxbridge Commissioners (Item 26, p. 27); the king’s instructions to George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, July 12, 1626 (Item 34, p. 34); and instructions to Colonel William Cochrane (Item 39, p. 39). 166 For the editorship of Kings Cabinet Opened, see Michael Mendle, Henry Parker and the English Civil War: The Political Thought of the Public’s “Privado” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 26. 167 The charge that the letters were forged was, however, continually posited, even though the king himself in an August 4 letter to Secretary Edward Nicholas admits that the letters were his, published in Two Letters of His Sacred Majesty (1645, Sept. 3T / C2851), 5–6. Nevertheless, it was a ­frequent explanation, even in common discourse. See Dagmar Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (New York: I. B. Tauris, 1997), 206–7. 168 Among the number of insightful evaluations of the configuration of the letters within the public and private spheres, see in particular Cecile M. ­Jagodzinski, Privacy and Print: Reading and Writing in Seventeenth-­ Century England (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999), 78–86; and Diana G. Barnes, Epistolary Community in Print, 1580–1664 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 121–30. 169 Parliaments Post, 11, July 8–15, 1645 (E.293[2]), 8; reproduced with minor changes in Diary, or An Exact Journall, 61, July 10–17, 1645 (E.262[24]), unsigned (last page). 170 Britanicus, 90, July 14–21, 1645 (E.293[15]), 814. 171 Potter, 60; but see Diane Purkiss, Literature, Gender and Politics during the English Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 78–79; Derek Hirst, “Reading the Royal Romance: Or, Intimacy in a King’s Cabinet,” The Seventeenth Century 18.2 (Autumn 2003): 211–29; Frances E. Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-­ Century Print Culture (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 126–28; and Barnes, 121–34, for more on this narrative. 172 A Letter in Which the Arguments of the Annotator and Three Other Speeches upon Their Majestie’s Letters … Are Examined and Answered (Oxford, 1645, Aug. 12T / L1557), 4. 173 Knoppers, 43–62. Jason Peacey also analyzes the careful selection of the letters published in light of factional interests in “The Exploitation of Captured Royal Correspondence and Anglo-Scottish Relations in the British Civil Wars, 1645–46,” The Scottish Historical Review 79.2 (Oct. 2000): 213–32. 174 Britanicus, 91, July 21–28, 1645 (E.294[5]), 817, 819. 175 Aulicus, N/A, July 13–20, 1645 (E.296[33]), 1665. 176 Aulicus, N/A, Aug. 10–17, 1645 (E.298[23]), 1705; Britanicus, 95, Aug. 25– Sept. 1, 1645 (E.298[24]), [854]. 177 Britanicus, 96, Sept. 1–8, 1645 (E.300[6]), 858.

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  261 178 This figure also includes analysis of Item 39 in issue 97. 179 Anti-Britanicus, N/A, Aug. 11, 1645 (E.296[9]), 9. John Berkenhead may have composed this newsbook (P. W. Thomas, Sir John Berkenhead, 1617–1679: A Royalist Career in Politics and Polemics [Oxford: Clarendon, 1969], 117, citing Madan). See also Barnes, 107, 117, on its commercial potential. 180 Anti-Britanicus, N/A, Aug. 1–31, 1645 (E.297[17]), 31. 181 Britanicus, 97, Sept. 8–15, 1645 (E.301[9]), 866. 182 Britanicus, 99, Sept. 22–29, 1645 (E.303[19]), 881. 183 Britanicus, 102, Oct. 20–27, 1645 (E.307[12]), 905. 184 As Symmons explains, the majority of the book was written in 1645 but, because of a variety of delays, was not completed until May 1646 and not published until late 1647 (To the Reader). 185 Still, as Jagodzinski points out, Icon Basilike, printed in 1649, still perpetuates the incivility narrative when it came to the printing of the letters (82). 186 Joad Raymond, “Popular Representations of Charles I” in The Royal ­Image: Representations of Charles I, ed. Thomas N. Corns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 58 (47–73). 187 Lucy Hutchinson, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson (London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1904), 275. 188 Purkiss, 72. Thomas May and John Milton, Purkiss points out, continued to emphasize this narrative in later publications. 189 Quoted in Joad Raymond, “Introduction: Networks, Communication, Practice” in News Networks in Seventeenth Century Britain and Europe, ed. Joad Raymond (New York: Routledge, 2006), 10 (ellipses are mine). 190 CJ, 4:302. 191 William Douglas Hamilton, ed., CSPD Charles I, 1644–1645 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1890), 435. 192 R. N. Dore, ed., The Letter Books of Sir William Brereton, 2 vols. (Chester: Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1984–1990), 1:515–16. The letter of O’Neill is authentic (Donal F. Cregan, “An Irish Cavalier: Daniel O’Neill in the Civil Wars, 1642–51,” Studia Hibernica 4 [1964]: 121 [104–33]). 193 Dore, 1:152. 194 Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 121, Oct. 7–14, 1645 (E.304[24]), 971. 195 Britanicus, 101, Oct. 13–20, 1645 (E.305[12]), 898. The City-Scout published only Hatton’s and the king’s letters, and reprinted the conclusion of Kings Packet of Letters regarding other intercepted letters from Digby not actually included in Kings Packet of Letters: 12, Oct. 7–14, 1645 (E.304[25]), 4–5. Jane Coe and Robert Austin printed City-Scout as well as the pamphlet. The Weekly Account prints only the king’s letter to Lucas and offers no editorializing: 41, Oct. 8–15, 1645 (E.304[27]), A3v. 196 Entered March 13 (Eyre and Rivington, 1:220); PP, 115. 197 CJ, 4:316, 320; CSPD Charles I, 1644–1645, vii. 198 CJ, 4:324; LJ, 7:666–67. 199 CJ, 4:329, 345. 200 This number includes instructions to Daniel O’Neill and John Fitzwilliam’s propositions. For convenience’s sake, I will refer to every document here as a letter. 201 Peacey, “Captured Correspondence,” 219. 202 Geoffrey Smith, Royalist Agents, Conspirators and Spies: Their Role in the British Civil Wars, 1640–1660 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 71–72. 203 The “care” Digby took of his letters is also mirrored in the king’s carelessness. As Thomas Juxon records in his diary for November 3, 1645:

262  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters Letters being read that were taken of Digby’s, there was amongst them one from Jermyn wherein he tells him what the queen said when she heard the cabinet was taken at Naseby: ‘a pox take him for a fool; one may know what countryman he is by carrying his pack at his back’

204 205

206 207

208 209 10 2 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

(The Journal of Thomas Juxon, 1644–1647, eds. Keith Lindley and ­David Scott [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 92). Gardiner, Civil War, 3:5; Peacey, “Captured Correspondence,” 224–32. Ian Roy, “George Digby, Royalist Intrigue and the Collapse of the Cause” in Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution, eds. Ian Gentles, John Morrill, and Blair Worden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 88 (68–90); CJ, 4:410. CJ, 4:372, 409, 426, 410, 439. PP lists only two orders to print. See Peacey, “Captured Correspondence,” 229, on some of these orders to print and the delay caused by the Lords. City-Scout, 14, Oct. 21–28, 1645 (E.307[18*]), 3; Britanicus, 102, Oct. 20–27, 1645 (E.307[12]), 905; Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, 123, Oct. 21–28, 1645 (E.307[16]), 988–89. See also Diary, 75, Oct. 16–23, 1645 (E.306[2]), 7–8. Civicus, 128, Oct. 30–Nov. 6, 1645 (E.308[15]), 1122. Veridicus, 32, Nov. 29–Dec. 9, 1645 (E.311[14]), 245–47; Continuation, 11, Nov. 28–Dec. 5, 1645 (E.311[8]), 2–3. It is also in others. Britanicus, 108, Dec. 1–8, 1645 (E.311[11]), 954–57. CJ, 4:410. Britanicus, 129, May 4–11, 1646 (E.337[9]), 1109. Britanicus, 127, Apr. 20–27, 1646 (E.334[9]), 1093. Britanicus, 130, May 11–18, 1646 (E.337[24]), 1115. Britanicus, 124, Mar. 30–Apr. 6, 1646 (E.330[24]), 1081. Britanicus, 130, May 11–18, 1646 (E.337[24]), 1116. The reference is to Kings Cabinet Opened, Letter 11 (10). PP, 137. CJ, 5:373, 374. For instance, Perfect Diurnall, 227, Nov. 29–Dec. 6, 1647 (E.520[11]), 1827, 1831; Perfect Weekely Account, 48, Nov. 30–Dec. 8, 1647 (E.419[17]), Y2–Y2v. Elencticus, 6, Dec. 29, 1647–Jan. 5, 1648 (E.421[34]), 47. I found no such report in any newsbooks of the last half of August 1647. Gardiner, Civil War, 3:154. Pragmaticus, 12, Nov. 30–Dec. 7, 1647 (E.419[12]), [M3v]. CJ, 6:301; PP, 169. Severall Proceedings, 1, Sept. 25–Oct. 9, 1649 (E.575[14]), 4–5; Kingdomes Faithfull … Scout, 37, Oct. 5–12, 1649 (E.533[18]), 266–69. Perfect Weekly Account, N/A, Oct. 3–10, 1649 (E.575[17]), 625–28. Neither the frigate nor Charles’s captured letters are expressly mentioned in CJ or in the Council of State’s proceedings as calendared in Mary Anne Everett Green, ed., CSPD [Relating to the Commonwealth] (London: Longmans / Trübner, 1875–1886) for 1650 (hereafter abbreviated as CSPD Comm.). The Council of State was well aware of the discovery, however: Council of State member Bulstrode Whitelocke noted the letters in his June 10, 1650, entry: a French marquis landed in the north of Scotland to assist Montrose, not knowing what had become of him; but the marquis was secured, and from him were taken many letters from the king … encouraging him [Montrose] in the business he had undertaken. (Whitelocke, 3:201)

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  263 226 Briefe Relation, 43, June 11–18, 1650 (E.603[9]), 642; Raymond, Invention, 75. The letters are calendared in CSPD Comm., 1649–1650, 325, 488, 490; and CSPD Comm., 1650, 56. Copies are also in Mark Napier, Memorials of Montrose and His Times, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: The Maitland Club, 1848–1850), 2:364, 383, 393, 410. 227 Mercurius Politicus, 2, June 13–20, 1650 (E.603[13]), 23. 228 Politicus had earlier reported on the discovery of the letters—1, June 6–13, 1650 (E.603[6]), 16—as did Perfect Diurnall, 27, June 10–17, 1650 (E.777[12]), 298; Severall Proceedings in Parliament, 38, June 13–20, 1650 (E.777[13]), 544–46, also prints the letters but offers no editorializing. 229 Politicus, 2, June 13–20, 1650 (E.603[13]), 24. Interestingly, Charles’s four letters as gathered in the State Papers are endorsed “Copies of letters from young Tarquin to Montrose” (CSPD Comm., 1649–1650, 325). Nedham was fond of using this epithet to describe Charles in Politicus; these are evidently the copies he used. 230 CJ, 6:469, 471; PP, 177. 231 Politicus, 16, Sept. 19–26, 1650 (E.613[8]), 268, 270–71. 232 Politicus, 2, June 13–20, 1650 (E.603[13]), [31]; Number 3, June 20–27, 1650 (E.604[8]), 38, 43; Number 11, Aug. 15–22, 1650 (E.610[3]), 161. Roger L’Estrange helpfully catalogued many more of these sorts of epithets in 1660 in his A Rope for Pol, or A Hue and Cry after Marchemont Nedham (Sept. 7 T / L1299A). 233 Severall Proceedings, 52, Sept. 19–26, 1650 (E.780[13]), 769–73 (769 mispaginated as 761); Perfect Diurnall, 42, Sept. 23–30, 1650 (E.780[16]), 530 (but the issue is irregularly paginated). Other newsbooks print fewer letters with either minimal commentary or none at all. 234 For instance, Behold! Two Letters, the One Written by the Pope, to the (then) Prince of Wales, Now the King of England; the Other an Answere to the Said Letter (1642 / G1880). It is also in William Prynne’s The Popish Royall Favourite (1643, Dec. 11T / P4039-A) and his Hidden Workes of Darkenes Brought to Publike Light (1645 / P3973), while The English Pope (1643, July 1T / E3109-B) and John Goodwin’s Hybristodikai: The Obstructours of Justice, or A Defence of the Honourable Sentence Passed upon the Late King (1649, May 30T / G1170) offer abbreviated versions of the letter. 235 ODNB, 12:761. 236 ODNB, 12:761; CJ, 9:523. For the physical disposition of the letters, see Historical Manuscripts Commission, Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1678–88, 11th Report, Part 2 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1887), 3–16. 237 CJ, 9:525–29. 238 CJ, 9:531, 535. 239 Anchitell Grey, ed., Debates of the House of Commons from 1667 to 1694, 10 vols. (London, 1769), 6:149. 240 Grey, 6:151. 241 CJ, 9:536; LJ, 13:349. 242 CJ, 9:544; Kenyon, 104. 243 Registered on December 21 (Eyre and Rivington, 3:77). 244 The general date is determined by a notice in the December 26, 1678, issue of the London Gazette (cited in my next note) offering a reward for discovery of the printer. 245 London Gazette, 1368, Dec. 26–30, 1679, verso. See also Mark Knights, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–81 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 180 and n212.

264  Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters 246 George Treby, ed., A Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott, vol. 1 (1681 / T2102), 119. 247 John Miller, James II, 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 88. 248 T. B. Howell, comp., Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, 34 vols. (London: R. Bagshaw, 1809–1826), 7:54. 249 John Miller, “The Correspondence of Edward Coleman, 1674–78,” Recusant History 14 (1977–1978): 262 (261–75). 250 Kenyon, 105. 251 Miller, “Coleman Correspondence,” 261; CJ, 9:530. 252 Dryden, Preface, Religio Laici (1682 / D2342-4), unsigned (fifth page). I quote from D2342. North quoted in Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 139 (last two sets of ellipses in source). 253 Nalson, 2:837. 254 The general date is inferred by way of CJ, 9:654, since on November 15 the persons responsible for the publication were called to the bar. The pamphlet is also identified as P2945 on the University Microfilms International microfilm set (Early English Books, 1641–1700) (ESTC); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. 255 Grey, 8:1. 256 CJ, 9:625 (see also CJ, 9:605); Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1678–88, 11th Report, Part 2, 6–8, 11, 13–15. 257 Grey, 8:21. 258 CJ, 9:670. Printed during Hilary term (Jan.–Feb.) (Edward Arber, ed., The Term Catalogues, 1668–1709, 3 vols. [London: Privately Printed, 1903–1906], 1:431). 259 Richard Chandler, The History and Proceedings of the House of ­C ommons, 14 vols. (London, 1742–1744), 2:1–2. 260 Grey, 8:1. Miller observes that Treby’s edition contains its own intentional and unintentional inaccuracies (“Coleman Correspondence,” 262). 261 Miller, “Coleman Correspondence,” 261. 262 CJ, 9:531, 532. 263 Entered June 18 (Eyre and Rivington, 3:85). The letters are on pages 37 and 41. 264 Identified as C6169 on the University Microfilms International microfilm set (Early English Books, 1641–1700) (ESTC); it is also identified as such on Early English Books Online. 265 A notation on the third page of the Bodleian Library copy of the pamphlet records that it was printed in August 1679. 266 Kenyon, 169. 267 Henry Care, in his The History of the Damnable Popish Plot (1680 / C522), claims the discovery of the letter in Caryll’s chambers (281–82, 290), while John Warner offers the other circumstance: see Hugh Bowler, “The Caryll Letter,” The Month 161 (1933): 266 (265–71). 268 Moreover, the recipient is transformed from one Benedictine nun into several Jesuits. Catholic stationer Matthew Turner was committed to Newgate for distributing this broadside (Bowler, 266 and n8). 269 Printed during Hilary Term (Jan.–Feb.) (Arber, 1:382). 270 Historical Account printed during Trinity Term (June) (Arber, 2:273). 271 Account of the Private League published during Trinity Term (June) (Arber, 2:278). John Wildman, attr., An Account of the Reasons of the

Printing Intercepted, Captured, and Discovered Letters  265 Nobility and Gentry’s Invitation of His Highness, the Prince of Orange, into ­England (1688 / A379), 6 (published during Easter Term [Apr.–May], Arber, 2:257). 272 Wildman, attr., Account of the Reasons, 6. 73 Allan I. Macinnes, Lesley Graham, and Kieran German, “Introduction: 2 Living with Jacobitism” in Living with Jacobitism, 1690–1788: The Three Kingdoms and Beyond, eds. Allan I. Macinnes, Kieran German, and ­L esley Graham (London: Chatto and Windus, 2014), 19; Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 451, 473. 274 For Charles’s Naseby letters used as evidence during his treason trial, see Sean Kelsey, “Politics and Procedure in the Trial of Charles I,” Law and History Review 22.1 (Spring 2004): 21 (1–25).

Index

The designation “letter by” indicates the authentic author of a work, “letter of” indicates the spurious author of a letter, and “letter to” indicates the named recipient of any sort of letter Abell, William 32; satirical letter to 95 Abstract of the Contents of Several Letters Relating to the Management of Affairs with Rome by the D[uke] of Y[ork] and Others (1679 or 1680) 245 Admirable and Notable Things of Note (1642) 43, 45 Ahmed II (sultan): satirical letter of 140; satirical letter to 139–40 Allam, Andrew 21, 57, 69 Answer of the Parliament of England to a Paper Entituled, A Declaration by the Kings Majesty to His Subjects of the Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland (1650) 241–42 Answer to Blundell the Jesuits Letter (1679) 248 Answer to The Lord George Digbies Apology for Himself (1643) 40, 211, 255n59 Argyll, 9th Earl of see Campbell, Archibald army, parliamentary: narrative of weakness of 217–19; satirical letter to 102–3 Bacon, Francis 171: letter collection of 185 Baillie, Robert 20, 21, 193, 194 Baldwin, Richard 123, 128, 137, 149n166 Barnes, Diana 154, 155, 189n44 Barrow, William (alias Harcourt, alias Waring, alias Harrison): discovered

letter to 246–48; fictional letter of 247–48 Beaumont, Robert 15, 62, 69 Beebee, Thomas 4, 14, 15 Behn, Aphra 15, 72 Berkenhead, John: as editor of Mercurius Anti-Britanicus 231; as editor of Mercurius Aulicus 52, 215, 217, 221–22, 224, 229; as editor of Mercurius Bellicus 220 Blundel the Jesuit’s Letter of Intelligence to His Friends the Jesuites (1679) (Caryll) 248–49 Blundell see Caryll, Peter Bond, John: and criticism of fictionalizing 28, 31, 37, 38, 88, 149n165; fictional letter by 17, 43–44; and punishment for printing 44, 80n111 Bradshaw, John: fictional letter of mother of 103 Brereton, William 234: intercepted letters by 216 Brethrens Answer in London to Mr. Ferguson’s Letter (1683) 125, 126 Bridgeman, Orlando 68; letter to 198–202 Brief Discovery of the True Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales (1696) (Fuller) 70 Briefe Relation: printing captured letters 240 Brome, Henry: satirical letter of 122; satirical letter to 121–22 Brome, Joanna 118, 119, 120, 121, 123

268 Index Brooke, Basil 53; intercepted letters to 224 Broome (Brome), Richard 80n115; fictional letter by 45 Bulkley, Stephen 257n93, 257n99 Burghley, 1st Baron see Cecil, William Burnet, Gilbert 65, 83n183, 84n188 Butler, James, 1st Duke of Ormond: captured letters to 228, 235; intercepted letters to 239 Byron, John 39; intercepted letters by 225, 233 Campbell, Archibald, 9th Earl of Argyll: intercepted letter by 216 Campbell, John, 1st Earl of Loudoun 212; captured letters by 241–42 Capel, Arthur, 1st Baron Hadham: letter collection of 151–52, 184 captured letters 225–33, 234–38, 240–42; and cultural narratives 3, 10; defined 192; frequency of publication of 251 Care, Henry 121, 123, 248; as editor of Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome 120–21; satirical letter by 118–21 Carnarvon, 1st Earl of see Dormer, Robert Cary, Lucius, 2nd Viscount Falkland 38, 68, 199; declining to open intercepted letters 215 Caryll, Peter: discovered letter by 248–49 Catholics: and ciphering 40; discovered letters by 242–51; fake letters of coded as secret 26–28, 34–37, 38–39, 53–54, 67–68, 70–72, 115–16, 202–4; fictional letters of 17–20, 26–31, 34–37, 38–39, 41–46, 53–55, 67–72, 202–4, 247–48; intercepted letters by 2, 195–98, 222, 224–25; narrative of treachery of 28, 34–37, 38–39, 47, 53–54, 66, 67–68, 97–99, 198–204, 207, 222–23, 246, 250–51; printing own intercepted letter 248–49; satirical letters of 114–16, 118–22, 135–40; secret correspondence by 66, 151, 242–51 see also crypto-Catholics; Jesuits; popes cavaliers see royalists

Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle 10 see also CCXI Sociable Letters Cavendish, William, Duke of Newcastle 155, 168; intercepted letter to 225 Cecil, William, 1st Baron Burghley 22; fictional letters by 2 Ceely, Thomas: intercepted letter by 221 Cellier, Elizabeth 51, 121; narrative of promiscuity of 115–17; satirical letters of 115–16, 118–19; satirical letters to 115–16, 117–18 Certain Letters Written to Severall Persons (1654) (Capel) 184, 151–52 Certaine Letters Sent from Sir John Hotham, Young Hotham … and Others (1643) 151, 215 Certaine Observations of Both Houses of Parliament Concerning Two Letters (1642) 256n70 Charles I (king of England): captured letters by 226–34, 235, 236; and ciphering 40, 212, 213; criticisms of printing letters 214; declining to open intercepted letters 215; fictional letter of 55–57; fictional letters to 43, 45, 48–49, 54–57; intercepted letters by 211–15, 220, 224, 233–34; intercepted letters to 194, 219–20; letter by 242, 263n234; and narrative of duplicity of 213, 227, 232–33, 237, 238; narrative of evil counselors of 33–34, 43, 47, 206–10, 227, 228; narrative of uxoriousness of 4, 212–13, 229, 233; unprinted intercepted letters by 209, 211–12 see also King’s Cabinet Opened Charles II (king of England): antedated letter to 17; captured letters by 240–41; captured letters to 241–42; coded familiar letter to 184; and Colman’s discovered letters 243; intercepted letters by 239–40; and “King’s Answer” 89–90; and “like-father-like-son” narrative 239–41, 242; narrative of immaturity of 241–42; narrative of tyranny of 58, 66 ciphering (ciphers, characters) 8; of Catholics 40, 70, 124; of Charles I 40, 212, 213; of Colman 242, 246;

Index  269 of Digby 40; of Jesuits 40, 60, 64; of Long Parliament 96–97, 219; of royalists 40, 212, 213, 220, 236, 239 circular letters 64 Clement IX (pope): satirical letter of 100–1 Clement X (pope): fictional letter of 50–51; satirical letter to 3, 99–100 Coll. Henry Marten’s Familiar Letters (1662) 152 collaborative epistolary fiction 58–59, 122, 125 Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott (1681) 66, 245–46, 249 College, Stephen: satirical letter by 122; satirical letter of 122–23; satirical letter to 123–24 Colman, Edward: discovered letters by 102, 242–46; discovered letter to 102, 243; print letters redux of 249–51 Committee of Safety, second: character of 106; fake letters of coded as secret 107, 111–12; letters by members of 107, 108; members of 106; satirical letters of members of 105–13 see also names of individual members complimental letters 49, 137, 138–39, 163, 166–67, 210–11 Compton, Spencer, 2nd Earl of Northampton: captured letters to 212 confessional mode 6, 33–34, 93–94, 96, 108–9 Continuation of Certaine Speciall … Passages 193, 237; supporting antiroyalist narratives 37, 213 Conway, Edward, 2nd Viscount: fictional letter to 30–31 Cook, John: letters by 152 Cooper, Anthony Ashley, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury: narrative of treason of 127, 128, 129; satirical intercepted letter of 128–29 Copie of a Letter Sent from the Commander in Chiefe of … Plymouth to … William Lenthall (1643) 52

Copie of a Letter Sent from the Right Honourable the Lord Paget unto … Parliament (1642) 48 Copie of a Letter Sent from the Roaring Boyes in Elizium to … Alderman Abel and M. Kilvert (1641) 95, 98 Copie of a Letter Sent from William Laud … unto the Universitie of Oxford Specifying His Willingnesse to Resigne His Chancellor-Ship (1641) 33 Copie of a Letter Sent Out of England to Don Bernardin Mendoza (1588) (Cecil) 2, 22 Copie of a Letter Written from His Holinesse Court at Rome to His Grace of Canterburies Palace (1642) 50 Copie of Certaine Letters Which Manifest the Designe of the Late Discovered Plot (1644) 53, 259n145 Copie of the Queens Letter from The Hague in Holland to the Kings Majesty (1642) 17, 43–44, 45, 46, 47 Coppy of a Letter of Father Philips (1641) 11, 195–97, 202, 203–4 Coppy of a Letter Sen[t] from the Earle of Traquere … to Old Father Philips (1641) 3, 32, 34–35, 39, 47, 65, 197 Coppy of a Letter Sent by William Laud … to the Universitie of Oxford Wherein He Relates His Present Condition and Resignes the Office of His Chancellourship (1641) 32–33 Coppy of a Letter Sent from John Lord Finch … to … Dr. Cozens (1641) 31–32, 50 Coppy of Generall Lesley’s Letter to Sir John Suckling (1641) 29–30, 31, 94 Coppy of Mr. Henry Wilmots Letter to M. William Crofts (1642) 207–8, 209, 210, 222 Copy of a Letter Addressed to the Father Rector at Brussels Found among Some Jesuites (1643) 39–40, 60, 66, 247 Copy of a Letter Out of the Country to One in London (1688) 67–68

270 Index Copy of a Letter Written by a Jesuite to the Father-Rector at Bruxels (1679?) 247 Copy of a Letter Written by Mr. William Newton … unto … Francis Newton (1642) (Umfreville) 16, 46, 47 Corbet, John 20–21, 69 Corbet, Miles: letters brought to Parliament by 37, 207, 208; and seizing letters 174, 176 Cosin, John: fictional letter to 31–32 Council of State (1644): intercepted letter by 221 Counter-Buff to Lysimachus Nicanor Calling Himself a Jesuite (1640) (Mure) 21–22 Cresswell, Elizabeth 126; satirical letter of 117–18 Croft, William: intercepted letter to 207–9 Cromwell, Oliver 46; fictional letter of 55; intercepted letter to 218, 219 Crouch, John: as editor of Man in the Moon 55; satirical letters by 103–5 crypto-Catholics: fictional letters of 31–32, 37–38, 58, 198–202; narrative of treachery of 20, 28, 31–32, 37–38, 203–4, 124; satirical letters of 121–22, 124–25 Culpepper, John 38, 68, 199, 201 cultural narratives 3–5, 12, 47–48, 86, 91, 192–93, 226; defined 2 see also narratives Cunning Plot to Divide and Destroy the Parliament (1644) 53, 54, 204, 224–25 Curtis, Langley 122, 123 Danby, Earl of see Osborne, Thomas Danes Plot Discovered against This Kingdome (1642) 47, 80n115 Daniel, John: fictional letter of 67–68 dating (dates) 6–7, 28, 155, 157; antedating 17, 125, 170; postdating 234 de Acuña, Diego Sarmiento, 1st Count Gondomar: fictional letter to 18–19 de Vic, Henry 258n138; intercepted letter to 223, 224–25 Declaration and Resolution of the Lords and Commons in Parliament (1642) 200

Declaration of the Commons of England in Parliament Assembled (1648) 206 Declaration or Remonstrance of the Lord and Commons … with Divers Depositions and Letters thereunto Annexed (1642) 207, 210 Derby House Committee: letters of 218–19 Devereux, Robert, 3rd Earl of Essex 181, 205: intercepted letter to 216; letter by 218; letter to 5; letters brought to Parliament by 209 Devil see Satan D’Ewes, Simonds: and Bridgeman letters 200, 204; and fictional letters 27, 46, 253n28 Digby, George 208: captured letters by 231–32, 234–39; defending his intercepted letters 210–11, 215; intercepted letters by 40, 41–43, 53, 193, 206–7, 209–11, 224–25; intercepted letter to 209–10, 233–34; narrative of evil counsel of 43, 47, 206–7 Disbrowe, John 106, 111; letters by 107 “Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire” (Dryden) 87–88 discovered letters 1, 242–51; and cultural narratives 3, 10; defined 192; fictional 26–27, 37–40, 59–60, 64, 67–68, 70–72, 202–4, 247–48; satirical 98–99, 133 Discoverie of the Unnaturall and Traiterous Conspiracie of Scottisch Papists (1593) 2, 151 Discovery of a Great and Wicked Conspiracy against This Kingdome (1642) 204–5 Dives, Lewis: intercepted letter to 206–7 Dolan, Frances 116 Donne, John: letter collection of 185 Dormer, Robert, 1st Earl of Carnarvon: fictional letter of 53 Dr. Oates’s Answer to Count Teckly’s Letter (1683) 131–32, 148n144 Dr. Oates’s Answer to Count Teckly’s Letter Giving Him a True Account of the Present Horrible Plot (1683) 131 Dryden, John 87–88, 89, 140, 244 Dutch: satirical letters of the 104

Index  271 Earle of Straffords Letter to His Lady Sent by a Trusty Messenger (1641) 23, 24–25, 26, 27, 28 Eikon Basilike, or The Picture of the Late King James (1696) (Oates) 133 Eikon Brotoloigou, or The Picture of Titus Oates … in a Letter to Himself (1697) 133–34, 141n3 Eliot, Thomas: intercepted letter by 209–10 Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of Charles I): intercepted letter by 219–20 Epistle Congratulatorie of Lysimachus Nicanor (1640, 1684) (John Corbet) 20–22, 57, 69 Epistle Written from Lucifer … unto … the Persecuting Popish Prelats (1642) (Francklin) 3, 69, 100 Epistles (1608, 1611) (Hall) 150–51 Epistolae Ho-Elianae (1645) (Howell): and antedating 7; and complimental letters 166–67; criticism of pamphleteering in 176, 177; criticism of religious novelty in 169; and dating 157; described 155; influence of 154, 155; and intellectual exchange 167–68; and interception 174–75; narrative of civility in 161–62; narrative of constancy in 169–70; narrative of cultural degeneration in 160; narrative of friendship in 157–58; narrative of intimacy in 163–66; narrative of nostalgia in 179; narrative of privacy in 174; narrative of secrecy in 163, 165, 166; narrative of sincerity in 163; narrative of stoicism in 178; and news exchange 170–71, 171–72; rewriting history as prophecy 180–81; and significance as collection 177–78 Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum see Letters of Obscure Men “Epistolary Essay from M. G. to O. B. upon Their Mutual Poems” (Wilmot) 89 epistolary novel 1, 2, 14–15, 72 equivocation 114; and letter writing 247–49 Essex, 3rd Earl of see Devereux, Robert

Evelyn, John 59, 133, 206 Exact Copy of a Letter Dropt by Accident near Ludgate (1688) 67–68 Faenestra in Pectore, or A Century of Familiar Letters (1660) (Forde) 154; and complimental letters 166–67; criticism of pamphleteering in 176, 177; criticism of religious novelty in 169, 170; described 155; fear of interception in 174; and intellectual exchange 167–68; narrative of civility in 162; narrative of constancy in 170; narrative of cultural degeneration in 158–59, 160, 182–83; narrative of friendship in 157, 158–59; narrative of intimacy in 163–66; narrative of nostalgia in 179–80, 183; narrative of privacy in 174; narrative of secrecy in 163, 165, 166; narrative of sincerity in 6, 163; narrative of stoicism in 178, 183; news as species of innovation in 171, 172; prophesying the Restoration in 183–84; religious novelty in 182; rewriting history as prophecy in 181–84; and significance as collection 178 Fairfax, Thomas 181; intercepted letter sent to Parliament by 212; intercepted letter to 219, 221; letter to 56 Falkland, Viscount see Cary, Lucius familiar letter collections: 1, 2, 6, 10, 94–95; coded as royalist 154; and cultural narratives 10; lack of publication of 153–54; by royalists 154–85; significance of 155–56, 177–78 Familiar Letter from Dr. Oates to William Fuller in the Fleet (1702) 72–73 familiar letters, single 72–73, 177 Fanatique Powder-Plot (1660) (L’Estrange) 59 Father La Chaise’s Project for the Extirpation of Hereticks (1688) 62–63 Ferguson, Robert 84n184; satirical letter of 125–26; satirical letter to 126

272 Index fictional letters 1; of Catholics 17–20, 26–31, 34–37, 38–39, 41–46, 53–55, 67–72, 202–4, 247–48; of crypto-Catholics 31–32, 37–38, 58, 198–202; and cultural narratives 2–3, 9–10; discovered 26–27, 37–41, 59–60, 64, 67–68, 70–72, 202–4, 247–48; intercepted 34–37, 49, 52–54, 66–67, 217–19, 221; of Jesuits 20–22, 39–40, 59–66; of parliamentarians 52, 55, 217–19; of popes 2, 32, 49–51, 66, 83n182; of royalists 22–49, 53–58; of Tories 64–65, 69–72; of Whigs 65 Finch, John 1st Baron: fictional letter of 31–32 Fleetwood, Charles 106, 111; satirical letter to 105–6, 113 Forde, Thomas 6, 19, 86 see also Faenestra in Pectore Fragmenta Aurea (1646) (Suckling) 94–95, 184 Francklin, Thomas 69, 100 French King’s Answer to Mons. Tyrconnel’s Letter (1690) 137–38 friendship: and epistolary satire 140; narrative of 154, 157–60, 170–73 see also familiar letter collections Frost, Walter: as editor of Briefe Relation 240 Fuller, William 69–73; satirical letter to 72–73 Further Confirmation That Mary Grey Was the True Mother of the Pretended Prince of Wales (1696) (Fuller) 70, 71 Glorious Revolution see 1688–1689 Revolution Gondomar, 1st Count see de Acuña, Diego Sarmiento Good Old Cause: and satanic association of 102, 112, 113, 126; satire of 103, 123, 128, 129, 131 Goring, George: fictional letter of 48–49, 137; intercepted letter attributed to 205; intercepted letter by 223–24 Graham, James, 1st Marquis of Montrose 235; captured letters to 240–41 Great Conspiracy of the Papists (1642) 202–3 Great News from the King of Poland (1682) 128–29, 141

Gregory XV (pope): letter to Charles I 242 Grey, Mary 70; fictional letters of 71 Gunpowder Plot: in reference to popes 97, 101; in reference to Popish Plot 114, 247; in reference to 1642, 36, 37, 200, 201, 204; in reference to Spain 19; in reference to Strafford 28 see also narratives: of gunpowder plots Hall, Joseph 150–51 Hamilton, William, Earl of Lanark 194; intercepted letter by 216 Harcourt, William see Barrow, William Harvey, Gabriel: letter collection of 186n17 Hatton, Robert: intercepted letter by 233–34 Henrietta Maria (queen of England): captured letters by 228; captured letter to 228, 235, 236; fictional letters of 41–44, 54–55; intercepted letters to 41–43, 206–7, 209–11, 212–15, 223–24; and narrative of Catholic treachery of 199, 203, 212–13; narrative of dominance of 4, 213, 223–24, 227, 228, 229, 230, 233, 238; and narrative of evil counsel of 43, 47, 208, 210, 212–13, 228, 233, 235; and Naseby letters 262n203 Heraclitus Ridens 118, 119 Hesilrige, Arthur 106, 201; satirical letters to 110–11, 113 Hewson, John 106, 109; narrative of insanity of 105–6; satirical letters of 105–6, 113 His Majesties Declaration to All His Loving Subjects (1643) 213–15, 232 Hotham, John, the elder 197; intercepted letter by 215; intercepted letter to 215–16 Hotham, John, the younger: intercepted letter by 215 Howard, William, 1st Viscount Stafford 246; satirical letter to 101–2 Howell, James 10; letters seized 174 see also Epistolae Ho-Elianae humanist letter writing 140, 141, 157, 163, 167 Hyde, Edward, 1st Earl of Clarendon 22; and Bridgeman letter 198–99, 199–200

Index  273 I Marry, Sir, Heere Is Newes Indeed, Being the Copie of a Letter Which the Devil Sent to the Pope of Rome (1642) 98–99, 100 Inchiquin, 1st Earl of see O’Brien, Murrough Innocent XI (pope): fictional letter of 32, 50–51; satirical letters of 101–2, 115–16, 249; satirical letter to 115–16 intercepted letters 1; by Catholics 195–204, 222–23; and cultural narratives 3, 10; defined 192; fictional 34–37, 49, 52–54, 66–67, 217–19, 221; frequency of publication of 193–94, 217, 251; by parliamentarians 198–202, 215–21; by royalists 40, 195–215, 223–25, 239–40; satirical 96–97, 100–1, 111–13, 119–21, 122, 128–29, 131–33 interception 35–36; criticisms of 173–76, 211, 214; frequency of 193–94 Intrigues of the French King and Others for Extirpating the Protestant Religion (1689) 249 Irish Rebellion 3, 35, 38, 45, 50 James II (king of England): and Colman’s letters 242–46; discovered letter attributed to 243–44, 245–46; fictional letters of 70–72; fictional letters to 72; narrative of lack of masculinity of 4, 134, 135, 136–37, 138–39; and narrative of sham prince 3, 62–63; Oates’s print letters to 133–34; print letters redux of 249–51; satirical letter to 136–37 Janeway, Jane: satirical letter to 122–23 Janeway, Richard 123; as editor of Impartial Protestant Mercury 122, 123 Jermyn, Henry 235, 236, 262n203; narrative of evil counsel of 207–9 Jesuits Grand Design upon England … in a Letter Lately Written from a Father of that Society (1660) (Peirce) 59–60, 62, 66, 69 Jesuits Letter of Thanks to the Covenanters in Scotland (1679) (John Corbet) 21

Jesuits: discovered letters by 246–47; fake letters of coded as secret 39–40, 59–66; fictional letters of 20–22, 39–40, 59–66, 248–49; narrative of treachery of 4, 18–19, 39–40, 60–66, 246–49 see also Catholics Johnston, Archibald, Lord Wariston 106; intercepted letter by 216; satirical letter of 108–9 Jones, John: fictional letter of 67–68 Key to the Kings Cabinet (1645) (Browne) 232 Kilvert, Richard 32; satirical letter to 95 King of France’s Letter to the Earl of Tyrconnel (1689?) 67 King of Scotlands Negotiations at Rome (1650) 242 King of Utopia, His Letter to the Citizens of Cosmopolis (1647) 55–57 “King’s Answer” 89–90 (attr. to Charles II) Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer 194; and Digby’s Cabinet 237; and Goring’s letter 223–24; and Naseby letters 227–28; printing letters in 5; supporting antiroyalist narratives 213, 222, 223, 225, 234 Kings Cabinet Opened (1645): compared to Digby’s Cabinet 234–35, 237, 238; contents of 228; and cultural narratives 232–33; debate on authenticity of letters in 230; incivility of printing 230, 232; influence of 225–26, 233; letters not printed in 226; media attention to 226–27; Mercurius Britanicus’ commentary on 228–32; and narrative of providential discovery 235, 237; narrative of spousal love in 220; pamphlets condemning 232; as royalist literary property 185 Kings Packet of Letters Taken by Colonell Rossiter (1645) 7, 233–34 Knoppers, Laura Lunger 229 Knyvett, Thomas: intercepted letters by 176 La Chaise, François de: discovered letters to 66, 102, 243–44, 249; fictional letters of 62–65, 83n175, 83n183; fictional letters to 64–65 Labadie, James de: fictional letter of 70–71

274 Index Labadie, Mary Anne de: fictional letter to 70–71 Lambert, John 106, 109; blurring of authentic and fake letters of 108; letters by 108; and narrative of insanity of 107–8; satirical letters of 86, 107–8, 111–13 Lanark, Earl of see Hamilton, William Late News, or Message from Bruxels Unmasked (1660) (Evelyn) 59 Laud, William 32, 37; fictional letters of 32–34; fictional letter to 50; letter by 33; narrative of evil counsel of 33–34, 47 Lenthall, William: fictional letter of 41; intercepted letter to 219; letters to 108; satirical letter to 107–8 Leslie, Alexander 93, 94; fictional letter of 29–30; fictional letter to 29–30; narrative of bellicosity of 29–30 L’Estrange, Roger 51, 82n162, 123, 195: as editor of Observator 118, 120, 123, 128, 129–30; and Milton’s letters 153; and Nedham 59, 263n232; satire of 119–21; satirical letter of 4, 121–22; satirical letter to 122 letter collections: captured 225–34; and cultural narratives 3; familiar 1, 2, 6, 94–95, 150–84; “revenge” 152–53 Letter Directed to Master Bridgeman (1642) 198–202, 204, 244 Letter from a Catholick Gentleman to His Popish Friends (1678) 114 Letter from a Jesuit at Paris to His Correspondent in London (1679) (Nalson) 17, 60–62, 66, 102 Letter from a Jesuite, or The Mysterie of Equivocation (1679) 249 Letter from Count Teckely to the Salamanca Doctor (1683) 130–31 Letter from Father La Chaise … to Father Peters (1688) 62–64, 66 Letter from His Holiness the Pope to … James Duke of Monmouth (1682) 32, 49, 51, 116 Letter from Lewis the Great to James the Less (1689–1690) 136–37 Letter from Maj. General Massey (1660) 57–58 Letter from Monsieur Tyrconnel from Limerick … to the Late Queen (1690) 138–39

Letter from Mr. Edward Whitaker to the Protestant Joyner (1681) 123–24 Letter from Paris from Sir George Wakeman to … W[illiam] S[croggs] (1681) 7, 124–25, 126, 140–41 Letter from Sir Henry Vane to Sir Arthur Hasilrig (1660) 110–11 Letter from Sir W. Waller to Doctor Otes Concerning the Times (1682) 126–28 Letter from Sir William Waller at Roterdam to Titus Oates in London (1683) 128, 129 Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the University of Oxford (1641) 33 Letter from the Devil to the Pope and His Prelates (1670) 3, 99–100 Letter from the French King to the Great Turk … with the Grand Seignior’s Answer (1692) 139–40 Letter from the Jesuits in the Savoy to the Jesuits at S. Omers (1688) 64, 66, 102 Letter from the Lady Creswell to Madam C[ellier] (1680) 117–18 Letter from the Pope to His Distressed Sons the Catholicks in England (1674) 100–1 Letter from the Pope to the French King (1672, 1680) 50–51, 66, 139–40 Letter in Which the Arguments of the Annotator and Three Other Speeches upon Their Majestie’s Letters … Are Examined (1645) 230 Letter Intercepted at a Court-Guard (1643) 36–37, 47, 65–66, 68 Letter Intercepted from a Confident of the Prince of Orange to His Friend in The Hague (1689) 66–67 Letter Intercepted from the PopishPrinter … to His Friend Heraclitus (1681) (Care) 119–21 Letter Intercepted Printed for the Use and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader (1660) (L’Estrange) 195 Letter of a Jesuit of Liege (1687) 4, 64 Letter of Enquiry to the Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus (1689) (James Taylor) 68–69

Index  275 Letter of High Consequence … Directed to Colonell Lunsford (1642) 38, 47 “Letter of the Duke of Monmouth to the King” 87, 89–90 (attr. to James Scott) Letter Out of Scotland from Mr. R[oger] L[’Estrange] to His Friend H[enry] B[rome] (1681) 121–22, 148n138 Letter Sent by Sir John Suckling from France (1641) 93–94, 141n3 Letter Sent from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury … to … Oxford (1642) 33–34 Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady … Together with a Speech of Mr. Plydell 23, 25 Letter Sent from the Earle of Strafford to His Lady in Ireland (1641) 23, 24–25 Letter Sent to London from a Spie at Oxford … to … M. Pym (1643) (Taylor) 44, 69, 96–97, 100 “letter to a great lady” 22–23, 26–28, 47, 68, 71 (attr. to Strafford) Letter to Father Petres from the Devil (1689) 134–35, 136 Letter to the House from the Laird Wareston (1660) 108–9, 115 Letter Written from the Tower by Mr. Stephen Colledge (1681) 122–23 Letter Written Out of Bedfordshire unto the Earle of Manchester (1643) 217–18 Letter Written upon Occasion from the Low-Countries (1642) (Umfreville) 46–47 Letters from the Marquesse of Argyle, the Earle of Lanerick, Lord Warriston … and Others (1645) 151, 216, 217 Letters of Obscure Men (Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum) (1515) 92, 108 Letters to Divers Eminent Personages (1646) (Suckling) 94–95, 184 Letters to Severall Persons of Honour (1651) (Donne) 185, 190n73 Letters Written by Sir W[illiam] Temple (1700) 153 letters: and cultural narratives 2, 4, 244; and structuring print news 9;

transformations of in print 6–9, 12 see also captured letters; discovered letters; fictional letters; intercepted letters; print letters; satirical letters letter-writing conventions 6; and meta-epistolarity 154, 163–66; parodied 115, 127, 135, 136 libel: and Fuller 72; letters as evidence of 7; in manuscript 89; print letter as 15, 20, 33, 149n165; and satire 85, 86, 88–89 see also self-libeling Literae Pseudo-Senatus Anglicani (1676) (Milton) 153 London citizens: fictional letter of 55–57; fictional letter to 55–57 London: narrative of destruction of 35–39, 53–54, 198–204, 224–25 Long Parliament: and captured letters 226–28, 234–37, 238–39; declining to print intercepted letters 193, 209–10, 211–12, 219–20, 223; frequency of letter publication 192, 217; and intercepted letters 195–202, 204–5, 206–10, 211–13, 215, 222, 224–25, 240–41; letter to 48; narrative of destruction of 28, 35–36, 53–54, 198–200, 202–4, 224–25; narrative of greed of 4, 44, 96, 231; narrative of treason of 47, 48, 96, 151–52, 199; suppressing print letters 41–48 Lord George Digbies Apologie for Himselfe (1643) 210–11, 215, 255n54 Lord George Digby’s Cabinet (1646): compared to Kings Cabinet Opened 234–35, 237, 238; delay in publishing 236; letters set aside for 235; Mercurius Britanicus’ commentary on 237–38; and multiple orders to print 236; and narratives worked out 236 Lord Lambert’s Letter to the Speaker (1660) 86, 107–8, 109, 110 Loudoun, 1st Earl of see Campbell, John Louis XIII (king of France): fictional letter of 43, 44, 45; narrative of invasion of 45, 67, 197, 203 Louis XIV (king of France): and discovered letter attributed to James II 243; fictional letters of 67, 71; fictional letter to 50–51; narrative

276 Index of immorality of 137–38; narrative of invasion of 67; narrative of irreligiousness of 139; narrative of tyranny of 124; and narrative of universal monarchy 4, 51, 65, 138, 139; satanic association of 140; satirical letter of 136–37, 137–38, 139–40; satirical letters to 137, 140 Love, Harold 87, 90, 141n14, 171 Loveday, Robert 10 see also Loveday’s Letters Domestick and Forrein Loveday’s Letters Domestick and Forrein (1659) (Loveday) 154; and complimental letters 167; criticism of religious novelty in 169; and dating 157; described 155; and fear of interception in 174; narrative of civility in 162; narrative of cultural degeneration in 161; narrative of friendship in 157, 159; narrative of sincerity in 163; and narrative of stoicism in 181; and news reportage 172–73: and nostalgia 190n85; and prophesy 180, 181; and significance as collection 178 Love-Letters between a Noble-Man and His Sister (1684) (Behn) 15, 72 Loveman, Kate 72 Lucas, Gervais: intercepted letter to 233–34 Lucifer see Satan Lunsford, Thomas: fictional letters to 37–39, 66 MacArthur, Elizabeth J. 14 MacLean, Gerald 15, 179 Maddam Celliers Answer to the Popes Letter (1680) 115–16, 119, 137 Mandeville, Viscount see Montagu, Edward Manifold Practises and Attempts of the Hamiltons (1648) (Nedham) 40 Marten, Henry: letter collection by 152 Mary I (queen of England): fictional letters of 18–20 Mary of Modena (queen of England): fictional letters of 69–71; narrative of dominance of 134; narrative of promiscuity of 135–36; satirical letter of 135–36; satirical letter to 138–39; and sham prince narrative 62–63

Massey, Edward: fictional letter of 57–58 Master Pyms Letter to Sir John Hotham (1643) 215–16, 217 Matters of Note Made Known to All True Protestants (1642) 203 May, Thomas 228, 234, 237 McRae, Andrew 4, 85, 86–87, 91 Meal Tub Plot: satirical letters regarding 113–16, 118–19 Mercurius Anti-Britanicus 232; contending with Mercurius Britanicus 231; criticism of Kings Cabinet Opened 231 Mercurius Aulicus 54, 194, 232; contending with Mercurius Britanicus 52–53, 230; criticism of Kings Cabinet Opened 229–30; determining authentic from fake letters 11, 12, 221–22, 224; fictional letters printed in 52, 221; intercepted letters printed in 215, 221; supporting intercepted letter publication 216, 217; supporting royalist narratives 11, 44, 217, 221, 224 Mercurius Britanicus 225; and commentary on Digby’s Cabinet 237–38; and commentary on Kings Cabinet Opened 228–32; and commentary on Naseby letters 226, 227; contending with Mercurius Anti-Britanicus 231; contending with Mercurius Aulicus 52–53, 221, 230; determining authentic from fake letters 221; fictional letters printed in 52–53; supporting antiroyalist narratives 53, 227, 229, 234, 237–38 Mercurius Civicus 227; fictional letter printed in 53–54; interaction with pamphlets 193; intercepted letters printed in 224–25, 225–26; and letters structuring news 9; supporting antiroyalist narratives 53–54, 213, 225, 227, 237 Mercurius Democritus: and satirical letters of the Dutch 104; and satirical reportage 103–5 Mercurius Elencticus: and accusation of fake letters 239; and criticisms of fictionalizing 16

Index  277 Mercurius Melancholicus: contending with Perfect Occurrences 55 Mercurius Phanaticus 105–6, 109 Mercurius Politicus: captured letters printed in 240, 241 Mercurius Pragmaticus (for King Charles II): printing satirical letter 103 Mercurius Pragmaticus 220; determining authentic from fake letters 239; printing satirical letter 102–3 Mercurius Veridicus 227; supporting antiroyalist narratives 237 Message from Both Houses of Parliament … Touching Certain Letters Lately Intercepted (1642) 206 Middleton, Griselda: intercepted letter to 221 Middleton, John: intercepted letter of 221 Miller, John 244, 246 Mills, Peter: intercepted letter of 221 Milton, John: letter collections of 152–53, 186n18 Monck, George 108, 110, 112; antedated letter by 17 Monmouth Rebellion: satirical letter regarding 133 Monmouth, 1st Duke of see Scott, James Montagu, Edward, 2nd Earl of Manchester 199; intercepted letter to 217–18 Montagu, Walter: intercepted letter to 195–97; letters taken on 222 Monteagle letter 76n42, 201, 204, 247 Monteagle, 4th Baron see Parker, William see also Gunpowder Plot Montrose, 1st Marquis of see Graham, James More, Thomas 56, 57 Moseley, Humphrey: and Suckling’s letters 94–95 Most Strange Letter Which Was Found in the Old-Change (1642) 79n87, 203 Mowry, Melissa 117 Mr. Coleman’s Two Letters to Monsieur L’Chaise … with Monsieur L’Chaise’s Answer to Mr. Coleman (1678) 66, 243–44

Mr. De Labadie’s Letter to His Daughter (1696) 70–71 Mr. Ferguson’s Letter to His Friends in London (1683) 125–26, 140 Mure, William 20–21 Nalson, John 11, 197–98, 201–2, 244; fictional letter by 17, 60–62; punishment for printing 62 narratives: of Catholic treachery 28, 34–37, 38–39, 47, 53–54, 66, 67–68, 97–99, 198–204, 207, 222–23, 246, 250–51; of civility 154, 157, 160–62, 228, 232; of constancy 154, 167–70; of crypto-Catholic treachery 20, 28, 31–32, 37–38, 124, 203–4; of cultural degeneration 154, 157–59, 160–62, 167–70, 169, 182–83; of destruction of London 35–39, 53–54, 198–204, 224–25; of destruction of Long Parliament 28, 35–36, 53–54, 198–200, 202–4, 224–25; of dissolute cavaliers 4, 30, 49, 53, 58, 93–94, 95; of evil counsel of Croft 207–9; of evil counsel of Digby 43, 47, 206–7, 210, 235; of evil counsel (general) 3, 227; of evil counsel of Henrietta Maria 43, 47, 208, 210, 212–13, 228, 233, 235; of evil counsel of Jermyn 207–9, 236; of evil counsel of Laud 33–34; of evil counsel of Wilmot 207–9; of foreign invasion (Denmark) 43, 46; of foreign invasion (France) 37, 44, 45, 46, 67, 99, 197, 203, 235–36; of foreign invasion (general) 4, 45–47, 205, 208–9, 238; of foreign invasion (Holland) 43, 45–47, 66–67, 235–36; of foreign invasion (Ireland) 37, 98, 99, 223, 235–36; of foreign invasion (Scotland) 45, 241; of foreign invasion (Spain) 18–20, 44, 46, 97, 99; of foreign invasion (Vatican) 99; of foreign invasion (Venice) 44; of French–Catholic treachery 41–43, 67, 98–99, 246, 250–51; of friendship 154, 157–60, 170–73; of gunpowder plots 4, 19, 28, 36, 37, 68, 204; of insanity 105–6, 107–8, 110–11, 112, 138; of intimacy

278 Index 154, 163–66; of Irish atrocity 35, 45, 50, 228, 234; of Irish–Catholic treachery 3, 98–99, 202, 229; of Jesuit treachery 4, 18–19, 39–40, 59–66, 102, 246–49, 247–48; of nostalgia 179–80, 183, 190n85; of papal tyranny 4, 49, 51, 66, 101; of parliamentary greed 4, 44, 96, 231; of parliamentary treason 47, 48, 96, 151–52, 199, 206; of privacy 174–76, 228, 229, 230; of providential discovery 234–35, 237; of royalist moral superiority 216, 217, 219, 220, 230, 232–33; of royalist treachery 24, 42–43, 205, 209, 212–15, 226, 234; of the royal romance 229; of satanic association 97–100, 102, 105, 110–11, 112, 125, 126, 140; of Scottish–Catholic treachery 151; of secrecy 163–65; of the sham prince 3, 62–63, 64, 69–72, 134–35, 135–36; of sincerity 154, 162–63; of Spanish–Catholic treachery 18–20, 98–99; of stoicism 156, 178–79; of treason of Tories 119, 124, 125; of treason of Whigs 123, 126, 128, 129, 132–33 Nedham, Marchamont 91: as editor of Mercurius Britanicus 52–53, 228–32, 234, 237–38; as editor of Mercurius Politicus 82n155, 240, 241–42, 263n229; as editor of Mercurius Pragmaticus 220, 258n117; epistolary persona of unmasked 58–59, 69; fictional letters by 40, 58–60, 66 Nettervill, James: fictional letter to 67–68 New Matters of Note Made Known to This Kingdome (1642) 203 Newcastle, Duchess of see Cavendish, Margaret Newcastle, Duke of see Cavendish, William Newes from Brussels in a Letter from a Neer Attendant on His Majesties Person (1660) (Nedham) 58–60, 66 Newes from Hell, Rome, and the Inns of Court Wherein Is Sett Forth the Coppy of a Letter Written from the Divell to the Pope (1641) 97–98, 144n57

news: and development of cultural narratives 121, 129–30; as expression of friendship 170–73; and letters (general) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8–9; as species of innovation 170, 171, 172; as structured by letters 8–9; uncertainty of informing print letters 107–8, 110, 111–13 News from Sir John Sucklin … Sent in a Letter to the Lord Conway (1641) 30–31 newsbooks: and accusations of fake letters 11, 51–53, 55, 221–22, 239; advance printing of letters by 193, 224–25, 226–27; animadversion among 9, 11, 51–53, 55, 104–5, 221, 230, 231; asserting narratives in 222–23, 225, 226–27; early commentary on Naseby letters in 226, 227; impact of 193, 215, 220–25, 226; and Kings Cabinet Opened 228–32; letters informing 8–9, 194; printing fictional letters in 51–55; printing intercepted letters in 213, 215, 220–25; printing satirical letters in 102–6; satire of 104–5; supporting antiparliamentary narratives in 44, 54–55, 217, 221–22, 224; supporting antiroyalist narratives in 37, 193, 205, 209, 222–25, 242 see also names of individual newsbooks newssheets: animadversion among 118, 120–21, 123–24 Newton, William: fictional letter of 16, 45–46, 47, 80n111 Nicholas, Edward 11, 260n165, 260n167; intercepted letter to 205, 206 Northampton, 2nd Earl of see Compton, Spencer Nutkiewicz, Michael 169, 170, 189n63 O’Brien, Murrough, 1st Earl of Inchiquin: intercepted letters by 194, 222 O’Neill, Daniel: intercepted letter by 233–34 O’Neill, Phelim: fictional letter of 38–39, 66 Oates New Shams Discovered (1683–1685) 133

Index  279 Oates, Titus: and Colman’s letters 250–51; and letter attributed to James II 250–51; letters forged by 73; narrative of homosexuality of 130–31; narrative of irreligiousness of 4, 129–32; narrative of treason of 132–33; and print letters to James II 133, 249; satirical letters of 72–73, 131–34; satirical letters to 126–31 Observator 118, 120, 123, 128, 129–30 see also L’Estrange, Roger orality (speech, dialogue) 2, 4, 6, 8, 73, 165 Original Letters of the Late King’s (1702) 71–72, 84n202 Ormond, 1st Duke of see Butler, James Osborne, Thomas, Earl of Danby 17, 61–62 Overton, Richard 77n54, 144n49, 144n61 Owen, Susan: fictional letter of 52 Oxford University: Laud’s fictional letters to 32–34; Laud’s letter to 33 Packet of Severall Letters Being Intercepted … Which Were Sent from John Lambert, Esq., to Many of the Phanaticks in the Country (1660) 111–13 Paget, William, 5th Baron 199; letter by 48 Papists New-Fashion’d Allegiance: A Letter Lately Seiz’d … Written by Father Harcourt (1679) 247–48 Parker, Henry 228, 234 Parker, William, 4th Baron Monteagle 76n42, 201, 204, 247 Parliament see Long Parliament, Rump Parliament, Scottish Parliament parliamentarians: and fake letters of coded as secret 96–97, 219; fictional letters of 22, 52, 55; fictional letters to 36, 44, 96–97; intercepted letters by 215–19; letter collections by 152–53; satirical letters of 96–97 see also Long Parliament Parliaments Care for the Citie of London (1642) 38–39, 47, 50, 57, 66 Parliaments Post 228; supporting cultural narratives 193 Patterson, Annabel 157, 180

Peacey, Jason 91, 236 Peele, Steven: fictional letter by 2 Peirce, Edmund 62, 69, 71; fictional letters by 58–60 Penn, William 64; fictional letter of 63–64 Penruddock, John: letter by 152 Pepys, Samuel 106, 107, 110, 111, 112 Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament 49, 209, 224, 242; and commentary on Naseby letters 226; supporting antiroyalist narratives 37, 213 Perfect Occurrences of Parliament: and commentary on Naseby letters 226; contending with Mercurius Melancholicus 55; supporting antiroyalist narratives 227 Petre, Edward: discovered letters by 246–47; fictional letters of 64–65, 69, 83n183; fictional letters to 62–65; satirical letters to 134–35 Phanatick Intelligencer 105 Philip, Robert 203; determining authenticity of letter of 197–98; fictional letter to 3, 34–35; intercepted letter by 195–97, 203 Pius V (pope): fictional letter of 2 Plott against the Citie of London (1642) 203 Poets Knavery Discovered in All Their Lying Pamphlets (1642) (Bond) 28, 37, 43, 88 Pope in His Fury Doth Answer Returne (1571) (Peele) 2 Pope’s Letter to the Lords in the Tower (1681) 101–2, 249 popes 136; and fake letters of coded as secret 98–100, 115–16; fictional letters of 32, 49–51, 249; narrative of tyranny of 4, 49, 66, 101; and reformation 88; satanic association of 97–100; satirical letters of 2, 3, 100–2, 115–16; satirical letters to 97–100 see also names of individual popes; satire: antipapal Popes Brief, or Romes Inquiry after the Death of Their Catholiques Here in England (1643) 222–23, 258n125 Popes Letter to Maddam Cellier (1680) 115–16, 137 Popish Damnable Plot (1680) 245, 246

280 Index Popish Plot: and Barrow’s discovered letters 246–48; and Colman’s discovered letters 242–46; and discovered letter attributed to James II 243–46; fictional letters printed during 40, 60–62; and Jesuits’ discovered letters 246–49; satirical letters regarding 118–33 “Popish Treaties not to be rely’d on” (attr. Burnet) 65, 66 postscripts 37, 97, 124, 126, 133, 208 Presbyterians 56: captured letters of 241–42; fictional letter to 20–22; narrative of satanic association of 125, 126; satirical letters of 125–26 print codes: of dating 7, 109; defined 6–9; of documentary evidence 6–7; of documentary news reportage 8–9, 58; of epistolary acknowledgement 7–8, 32, 37, 50, 51, 111, 130, 175–76; general 73, 92; of interreferentiality 8, 60; of locale 7, 109; of physical distance 7, 29–30, 56; of postal delivery 35, 96–97; of reciprocity 8, 165, 175, 177; of secret correspondence 7–8 print letters: attempts to control publication of 41–48; aura of manuscript circulation of 171–72; and cultural narratives 4–5; determining authentic from fake (general) 4, 16–17, 47–48, 86–87, 92, 194, 204; as documentary evidence 6–7; and documentary news reportage 8–9, 30, 31, 50; documenting Catholic treachery 99; documenting Charles I’s treachery 228; documenting Charles II’s treachery 241; documenting Colman’s treachery 246; documenting James II’s treachery 70, 71–72, 251; documenting Jesuit treachery 63, 65; documenting William III’s treachery 66–67; exploitation of 192; frequency of publication of 4; as historical documents 22, 40, 65, 100, 178; and libel cases 89; and manuscript libels 89–90; motivations for publishing 5–6; prophecy rewritten as history in 180–84; and publishing for profit 5–6, 17, 25, 28, 61–62, 91; punishment for

publishing 15, 19, 44, 61–62, 72, 73, 80n111; quasi-legal character of 7; as quasi-legal remedies 125, 126, 140–41, 151; and routes to publication 5–6, 17; and selflibeling 90–91; transformations of letter-writing conventions in 6–9 print letters redux: of Colman 249–51; defined 22; of James II 249–51; of Jesuits 40, 65, 247; of Oates 133; of popes 51; of royalists 204–6; of Satan 100 prison letters: satire of 116 Proceedings in the Late Treaty of Peace (1643) 212–15, 216; newsbooks supporting narratives in 213 prosopographia 15, 73, 85 prosopopoeia 15, 69, 73, 85 Purkiss, Diane 233 Pym, John 199: as forger of letters 221–22, 253n21; intercepted letter by 215–16; intercepted letter to 215, 216, 217; and “letter to a great lady” 27; preparing intercepted letter for print 207–8; satirical letter to 44, 96–97 Quakers 64; fictional letter of 63–64; satanic association of 105; satirical letter of 105 Queenes Letter to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty (1647) 54–55 Queenes Majesties Propositions to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty (1647) 81n143 Queens Letter from France to … the Prince of Orange (1689?) 135–36 Queen’s Majesties Gracious Answer to the Lord Digbies Letter (1642) (Bond?) 41–43 Ralegh, Walter: letter attributed to Strafford 24–26 Rawlins, Edward: as editor of Heraclitus Ridens 118, 119; satirical letter to 119–21 Raymond, Joad 15–16, 233 Reade, John 53, 54; intercepted letters by 224–25; intercepted letters to 224 Rebells Letter to the Pope (1642) 83n182

Index  281 Rebels No Saints, or A Collection of the … Letters … of Those Persons Lately Executed (1661) 152 Relation of the Sundry Occurrences in Ireland… [with] the True Copy of a Letter Sent from Colonell Goring to His Majesty (1642) 49, 137 Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae (1650) 185, 257n93 Remaines of the Right Honorable Francis, Lord Verulam (1648) (Bacon) 185 Reply to That Malicious Letter Pretended to Be Sent from … a Near Attendant on His Majesties Person (1660) 59, 69 Restoration 112; fictional letters printed regarding 57–60; satirical letters printed regarding 106–13 Reynolds, John: fictional letters by 17–20; punishment for printing 19 Reynolds, Robert: preparing intercepted letters for print 222 Richmond, 1st Duke of see Stewart, James Riley, Theophilus 53, 54; intercepted letters to 224 Rochester, 2nd Earl of see Wilmot, John Rome see Vatican Royal Letter Sent from the King of France to the King of England (1642) (Broome) 45, 67 royalists: captured letters by 225–42; and ciphering 40; and fake letters of coded as secret 26–28, 34–39, 40; familiar letter collections by 10, 154–85; fictional letters of 22–39, 41–49, 53–60; intercepted letters by 195–201, 204–15, 239–40; letter by 48; and narrative of dissolute cavalier 4, 30, 49, 53, 58, 93–94, 95; narrative of moral superiority of 216, 217, 219, 220, 230, 232–33; narrative of treachery of 24, 29–30, 42–43, 205, 209, 212–15, 226, 234; narrative of treachery of crypto-Catholics 20, 28, 31–32, 37–38, 124, 203–4; printing intercepted letters 215–19, 221; printing own captured or intercepted letters 219–20, 239; and privacy of correspondence

156; satanic association of 95, 237; satirical letters of 93–94, 95; secret correspondence by 212–13, 238 Rump Parliament: declining to print intercepted letters 240; printing captured letters 241–42; printing intercepted letters 239–40; and satanic association 102–3; satirical letter to 55, 102–3, 108–9 Rupert (prince of the Rhine): captured letters of 212; captured letter to 235, 237 Rye House Plot: satirical letters regarding 125–28, 131–33 Sadler, John 228, 234, 237 salutations 6, 31, 73, 97, 137, 238, 241–42 Salutem in Christo (1571) (Cecil) 2 Satan: fictional letters of 10; reformation of 88; satirical letters of 3, 97–100, 102–3, 134–45 satire: anti-Catholic 114, 118–22, 124–25, 135–40, 150–51; antiepiscopal 97–98; anti-Jesuit 64, 136; antipapal 3, 49, 50, 97–102, 115–16; of Cromwell 183; Dryden’s definition of 87; and friendship 140; of the Good Old Cause 102, 112, 113, 123, 129, 131; inadequate definitions of 87–88, 91; infernal 3, 95, 97–100, 102–3, 125–26, 134–35, 140; of intercepted letters 195, 217; and libel 85, 86, 88–89; mimic 92, 105, 107, 108–9, 115, 133–34, 135; of newsbooks 104–5; and pamphleteering 85, 88–89; of petition letters 135, 136; and reformation 87–88, 91, 103, 109–10, 140–41; revising understanding of 91 satirical letters 1; of Catholics 114–16, 118–21, 135–40; of crypto-Catholics 121–22, 124–25; and cultural narratives 3, 9–10; discovered 98–99, 133; intercepted 96–97, 100–1, 111–13, 119–21, 122, 128–29, 131–33; of parliamentarians 96–97, 103; of popes 2, 3, 100–3, 115–16; of royalists 93–94, 95; of Satan 97–100, 134–35; of second Committee of Safety members

282 Index 105–13; of Tories 114–16, 118–22, 124–25; of Whigs 72–73, 122–24, 125–34 Scotish Dove: and Naseby letters 226 Scott, James, 1st Duke of Monmouth: fictional letter to 32, 49, 51; “Letter of the Duke of Monmouth to the King” 87, 89–90; satirical letter of 87; satirical letter to 133; as Teckelite 130 Scott, Thomas 58; preparing letters for print 242 Scottish Parliament: intercepted letter to 220 Scroggs, William: and criticism of pamphleteering 5; and Jesuits’ discovered letter 247, 248; narrative of corruption of 124, 125; satirical letter to 124–25 Second Part of the Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plott (1681) 245–46 secret correspondence: fictional letters coded as (general) 7–8 self–libeling: of Catholics 114; of Clement IX 101; of Janeway 123; legally defined 90–91; of L’Estrange 122; of Oates 73, 134; of Shaftesbury 129; of Suckling 94 Severall Proceedings in Parliament 240; printing captured letters 242 Shaftesbury, 1st Earl of see Cooper, Anthony Ashley Shelley, Jane 253n28; discovered letter to 27 signatures 6, 31, 37, 73, 194–95, 223 1688–1689 Revolution: Colman letters printed during 249–51; discovered letter attributed to James II printed during 249–51; fictional letters printed during 40, 62–69, 102; satirical letters printed during 134–39 Some Observations upon Occasion of the Publishing Their Majesties Letters (1645) 232 Spenser, Edmund: letter collection of 186n17 Spie: contending with Mercurius Aulicus 52 Stafford, 1st Viscount see Howard, William Stafford, John: fictional letter to 67–68

State Tracts: Being a Collection of Several Treatises Relating to the Government Privately Printed in the Reign of K. Charles II (1689) 249 Stewart, James, 1st Duke of Richmond: captured letter to 228; intercepted letter to 205 Stewart, John, 1st Earl of Traquair: captured letter to 228; fictional letter of 3, 34–35 Still Worse Newes from Ireland … with the Copy of a Letter Sent from the Pope to the Rebels in Ireland (1641) 49–50 Strafford, 1st Earl of see Wentworth, Thomas subscriptions 6, 31, 137 Suckling, John: fictional letters of 29–30; fictional letter to 29–30; letter collection of 94–95, 184; narrative of cowardice of 4, 29–30, 93; and narrative of dissolute cavalier 30, 93–94; as Protestant martyr 30–31; satirical letter of 93–94 superscriptions 6, 37, 194–95 Symmons, Edward 232 Taaffe, Theobald: captured letters to 238–39 Talbot, Richard 64; fictional letters of 69–71; fictional letter to 67; narrative of obsequiousness of 137–39; satirical letter of 137, 138–39; satirical letter to 137–38 Taylor, James: fictional letter by 68–69 Taylor, John 11, 144n52; satirical letter by 44, 69, 96–97, 100 Teckely, Emeric: satirical letter of 130–31; satirical letter to 131–33 Temple, William: letter collection by 153 Third Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in England (1688) 65 Thompson, Nathaniel 51, 123; as editor of Domestick Intelligence 118; satirical letter of 119–21; satirical letters to 118–19 Three Intercepted Letters, the One from Charles Stuart, Son to the Late King (1649) 239–40 Three Letters (1689?) 64–65, 66, 69, 139

Index  283 Three Letters of Dangerous Consequence (1642) 208–9, 210, 222 Three Proper and Wittie Familiar Letters (1580) (Spenser and Harvey) 2, 186n17 Three Speeches Spoken at a Common– Hall … by Mr. Lisle, Mr. Tate, [&] Mr. Brown (1645) 228 To Day a Man, To Morrow None, or Sir Walter Rawleighs Farewell to His Lady (1644) 24 “To Mr. Henry German in the beginning of Parliament, 1640” (Suckling) 95, 184 Tonge, Ezerel: and Colman letters 245; letters forged by 73 Tories: fake letters of coded as secret 119, 122, 124; fictional letters of 64–65, 69–72; satirical letters of 119–22, 124–25 Traquair, 1st Earl of see Stewart, John Treby, George: and Colman letters 245–46 Triall of the Honourable Colonel John Penruddock (1655) 152 True and Good News from Brussels (1660) (Peirce) 58–59, 71 True Copie of a Letter Sent from Mr. William Bulwarke … to … John Greenall (1642) 35–36 True Copie of a Letter Sent from the Most Reverend William Lord … to the University of Oxford … Published by Occasion of a Base Libell and Forgery That Runs under This Title (1641) (Laud) 33 True Copie of the Three Last Letters Written by the Late Earle of Strafford (1641) 23, 25–26, 27, 28 True Copies of Two Letters Written by the Late Earl of Strafford (1641) 23, 27 True Copy of a Letter of Consolation Sent to Nat. the Printer … from the Meal-Tub Midwife (1681) 118–19 True Copy of a Letter (Intercepted) Going for Holland … for … Roger Le Strange (1681) (College) 122, 123 True Copy of a Letter Sent from The Hague in Holland to a Great Nobleman in England (1648) 204, 205–6

True Copy of Divers Intercepted Letters Sent from the Committee at Derby-House to Lieut. Gen. Cromwell (1648) 218–19, 220 True Informer: supporting antiroyalist narratives 222–23 Truest Relation of the Discoverie of a Damnable Plot in Scotland (1641) 254n43 Tryal of Edward Coleman (1678) 243 Tryals and Condemnation of Thomas White Alias Whitebread … William Harcourt … John Fenwick … John Gavan Alias Gawen, and Anthony Turner (1679) 246–47, 248–49 Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth (1702) (Fuller) 71, 84n202; CCXI Sociable Letters (Margaret Cavendish) 154; and complimental letters 167; criticism of religious novelty in 169; described 155; and intellectual exchange 168–69; narrative of civility in 161, 162; narrative of constancy in 170; narrative of cultural degeneration in 161; narrative of friendship in 157, 159–60; narrative of intimacy in 164; and news 173; and relevance of gender to 155, 161, 187n29; and significance as collection 178; stoicism in 179 Two Intercepted Letters from Sr. William Brereton to the Earle of Essex and M. Pym (1643) 216, 217 Two Letters from Rotterdam … Wherin Is Discovered a Most Divelish and Desperate Designe (1642) 208 Two Letters of Note, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queene (1642) 41–43, 206 Two Letters of the Lord Digby to the Lord Taaff (1647) 238–39 Two Letters Sent from the Earle of Strafford (1641) 23, 27 Two Letters, the One from the Lord Digby to the Queenes Majesty (1642) 209–10, 212 Two Other Very Commendable Letters (1580) (Spenser and Harvey) 2, 186n17

284 Index Tyrconnel’s Letter to the French King from Ireland (1690) 137 Tyrconnell, 1st Earl of see Talbot, Richard Umfreville, William: fictional letters by 45–47 Urban VIII (pope) 100; fictional letters of 49–50; fictional letters to 97–99; intercepted documents by 222 Utopia (1516) (More) 56, 57 Vane, Henry Jr. 106, 109; narrative of insanity of 110–11; and narrative of satanic association 110–11; satirical letters of 110–11, 112; satirical letter to 113 Vindication of King Charles … from Those Aspersions Cast upon Him by … The Kings Cabinet Opened (1647) (Symmons) 232 Vindication of the Parliament and Their Proceedings (1642) (Ward) 200, 255n59 Violet, Thomas 53; intercepted letters by 225 Vox Coeli, or Newes from Heaven (1624) (John Reynolds) 17–20 Wakeman, George: and narrative of treachery of 124; satirical letter of 124–25 Waller, William: and narrative of intemperance of 127; satirical letters of 126–28 Walton, Valentine: satirical letter of 113

Ward, Richard 200, 255n59 Wariston, Lord see Johnston, Archibald Webb, Thomas: intercepted letter by 204–5 Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome 120–21 Wentworth, Thomas, 1st Earl of Strafford: fictional letters of 22–28; and “letter to a great lady” 47, 68, 71; narrative of guilt of 23, 24–25; narrative of innocence of 23, 24–25; narrative of stoicism of 25–26 Whigs: and fake letters of coded as secret 128–29, 131; satirical letters of 87, 117–18, 122–24, 125–34 Whitaker, Edward: satirical letter of 123–24 Whitbread, Thomas 251; defending against discovered letter 246–47 William II (prince of Orange): fear of invasion of 43, 46–47 William III (king of England): fictional letter praising 65; narrative of strength of 135, 136–37, 138; narrative of tyranny of 66–67; satirical letter to 135–36 Williams, Richard: intercepted letter to 221 Williamson, Joseph 153, 243 Wilmot, Henry 89; intercepted letter by 207–9 Woolf, Daniel 158, 169, 170 Wren, Matthew 31, 32, 37; fictional letter to 203